- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29197 WP No. 16835 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16835 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. N. LAVANYA D/O. S.A. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.801, ANJANAPPA NILAYA, 16TH MAIN ROAD, GOKULA 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE – 560 054. 2. J. SHIVARAJU, S/O. H.B. JAVARAIAH, NO.176, GUNDU RAO BUILDING, B.R.I. COLONY, MAGDI MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASRHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 079. -AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. VISHWANATHAN J., S/O. JAGANATHAN K., NO.46, ADI NARAYAN TEMPLE STREET, COTTONPET, BANGALORE – 560 053. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 4. SURENDRA SINGH, S/O. ESHWARSINGH, NO. 250/1/1, 26TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010. -AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAILESH S KATAREY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29197 WP No. 16835 of 2026 AND: 1. THE 515 COMMAND ARMY BASE WORKSHOP HOUSING BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT COMMERCIAL SHOP NO.36, BBMP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, YESHAVANTHPURA, BANGALORE – 560 022. 2. SRI. SAMIULLA KHAN, S/O. LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PRESIDENT OF THE 515 ARMY BASE WORKSHOP NEAR ULSOOR POLICE STATION ULSOOR, BENGALURU – 560 008. 3. SRI. SRINIVASULU A.D. S/O. A.E. DEENADAYALU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SECRETARY OF THE 515 ARMY BASE WORKSHOP NEAR ULSOOR POLICE STATION ULSOOR, BENGALURU – 560 008. 4. SAGAYARAJ MATHEWS, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, EX-TREASURER, SECRETARY OF, THE 515 ARMY BASE WORKSHOP NEAR ULSOOR POLICE STATION, ULSOOR, BENGALURU – 560 008 5. SMT. CHANDANA G, W/O. SRI. AMRUTH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 009, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29197 WP No. 16835 of 2026 5TH CROSS, NEW TIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 075. ALSO AT NO.7, 11TH MAIN, MATHIKERE MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE, GOKULA EXTENSION, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560054. 6. THE COMMANDANT AND M.D., 515 ARMY BASE WORKSHOP, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560008. 7. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2026, PASSED BY THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND BESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL BENGALURU, ON 1.A.NO.6 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN 0.8.NO.26010/2024, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A. AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29197 WP No. 16835 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.26010/2024 dated 23.04.2026 by the XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, the petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for cancellation of Sale Deed dated 29.03.2023 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.5, to declare that the schedule property belongs to defendant No.1 Society and a consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 have sold the property belonging to the Society for a paltry amount. When the market value of the property runs into crores, they have sold the same for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Pending consideration of the suit, the plaintiffs have filed the present application i.e., I.A.No.6 seeking a direction to defendant No.6 to withhold the post- retirement benefits of defendant Nos.2 and 3 till the disposal of the suit. That application came to be dismissed by order impugned. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29197 WP No. 16835 of 2026 3. While dismissing the I.A.No.6, the trial Court had observed that according to the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.2 and 3 in collusion with defendant No.5. Registered the Sale Deed on 29.03.2023 by undervaluing the property and it is a matter of trial. At this stage, the court cannot go into all those aspects basing on the pleadings. Further, defendant Nos.2 and 3 under the veil of their office bearership, whether they did a loss to defendant No.1 Society is also a controversy and the same can be decided after a full-fledged trial. If the plaintiffs succeed in the suit against all the defendants with respect to the alleged fraud, collusion, undervaluation of the property along with all the other allegations, certainly the suit schedule property would vest with defendant No.1 Society. But granting an order to withhold the post-retirement benefits cannot be passed. The trial Court further observed that balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiffs and further, no loss is caused to the plaintiffs. Hence, the trial Court had observed that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief sought by them. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are going to retire from - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29197 WP No. 16835 of 2026 the service now. If any penalty is imposed on defendant Nos.2 and 3 for their action, it would be difficult for the Society to realize the amount. In fact, they have given a complaint to the Registrar and he is yet to initiate the enquiry. In the meantime, if defendant Nos.2 and 3 retires, they will be left with no option. In those circumstances, this application is filed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the material on record. The relief that is sought in the suit itself is seeking cancellation of the Sale Deed that is executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.5 and they also sought for permanent injunction. In this suit, they have not sought for any relief of damages for any cause against the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The interim relief should be ancillary to the main relief. But there is no nexus between the prayer in the I.A. and the main relief that is sought by the petitioners. It is the submission that their complaint is pending before the Registrar. If it is pending and if there is any inaction or they want any particular action to be taken, the petitioner's remedy is elsewhere. But they cannot seek the same in the pending suit where no relief is sought against defendant Nos.2 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29197 WP No. 16835 of 2026 and 3 for any kind of monetary relief. In these circumstances, the trial Court had rightly considered and dismissed I.A.No.6 and this Court finds no reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38