- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31135 W.P. No.9867/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.9867/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M.V. RAJANNA S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT GOVINDAPPA COMPOUND NAGASHETTIHALLI R.M.V 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560094. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADV., FOR SRI. K.N. SUBBA REDDY, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. M.V. SURESH KUMAR S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT MARALENAHALLI VILLAGE HANABE POST, KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GIRISHA T.R. ADV.,) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S. NO.417/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DODDABALLAPURA AND ALSO THAT OF THE RECORDS IN M.A.NO.18/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DODDABALLAPURA. SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17/08/2020 ON I.A.NO. I IN O.S.NO. 417/2018 PASSED BY Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31135 W.P. No.9867/2023 THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DODDABALLAPURA, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WP AND ALSO THAT OF THE ORDER DTD 14/02/2023 IN M.A.NO. 18/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DODDABALLAPURA, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J TO THE WP & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2020 passed in O.S.No.417/2018 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District (for short, ‘the trial Court’) and the order dated 14.02.2023 passed in M.A.No.18/2020 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, for short, ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Heard Sri.M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel for Sri.K.N.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Girisha T.R., learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31135 W.P. No.9867/2023 3. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.417/2018 against the petitioner-defendant for the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the defendant has filed a detailed written statement denying the assertion made in the plaint as well as contending that the second suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the withdrawal of the earlier suit filed by him on the same cause of action and for the same relief. In the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was filed by the plaintiff which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.08.2020. The said order of the trial Court was assailed by the defendant before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.18/2020 and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by affirming the order of the trial Court. 4. The petitioner-defendant has contended that under the agreement the plaintiff has received the amount and agreed to execute the sale deed and thereafter the defendant was placed in possession and revenue entries of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31135 W.P. No.9867/2023 the suit schedule property is standing in the name of the defendant. It is submitted that the earlier suit filed for the same relief was withdrawn after receipt of further amount of ₹15,000/- and later the present suit is filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction and when the defendant tried to remove the standing trees which were in his possession, the plaintiff has objected and filed the suit. The assertion of the defendant has been denied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and contented that there is no such understanding between the parties and considering all these aspects, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court concurrently held that the defendant cannot interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 5. Be that as it may, at this stage, learned counsel appearing for both the parties fairly submit that a direction may be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously and they assure that they would maintain - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31135 W.P. No.9867/2023 status quo with regard to the possession of the suit schedule property till the suit is disposed of. 6. Recording the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on both sides and without expressing any opinion with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the petition is disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property during the pendency of suit. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.417/2018 by the trial Court. 8. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible within an outer limit of eight (08) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31135 W.P. No.9867/2023 9. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2025 would not survive for consideration. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19