- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30401 WP No. 13266 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 13266 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI SHIVA KUMAR K.M. S/O LATE T.H.MUTHYALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A NMD NILAYA, NO. 260, 9TH CROSS, VIN FIELD GARDEN, DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 077 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.N.ASHWATHANARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.DEVENDRA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O KONDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A CHOWTA THIMMANAHALLI, ULLODU PANCHAYAT, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 209 2. SRI. C.K.RAJA REDDY, S/O KONDAPPA, R/AT CHOWTA THIMMANAHALLI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ULLODU PANCHAYAT, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 209 3. SRI. RAVI C.J., Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30401 WP No. 13266 of 2026 S/O JAYARAMAREDDY C.B., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A ULLODU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 209 4. SRI. SHRINATH, S/O JAYARAMAREDDY C.B., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A ULLODU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 209 5. SRI. VENKATANARAYANA, S/O POTHALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO. 52, DARABURU, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.A.VISHWANATHA REDDY, ADVOCATE AND SRI. M.L.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 16.04.2026 BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUDIBANDE IN O.S.NO. 100/2026 AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE EXTENT OF DENYING AD-INTERIM ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ON I.A. NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30401 WP No. 13266 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed in O.S.No.100/2026 dated 16.04.2026 by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Gudibande, whereby the trial court had issued summons to the respondents without hearing the IA filed for ad interim injunction on behalf of the petitioner, the plaintiff is before this court. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when an application is filed seeking ad interim injunction, the trial court ought to have considered the same on the merits of it instead of issuing summons. It is submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dhalitha Vividha Gramodyoga Kaigarika Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSD, arising out of W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC) dated 09.12.2025, has observed as follows: "6. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent-defendant for the reason that the petitioner is questioning the non- passing of the order on the application in IA.No.1, wherein the trial Court has neither passed any order for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction or for rejection of the same. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30401 WP No. 13266 of 2026 7. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff along with the plaint seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, it becomes the duty and obligation of the trial Court to consider the same and pass suitable orders either granting or rejecting the ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. This Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr.Shashidhara A.V. in WP.No.33725/2025 [Decided on 17.11.2025] has made certain observations and guidelines as to how the trial Court has to deal with an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It is not optional for the trial Court to merely issue notice to the defendant before passing an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendant. 8. The trial Court will also have to consider judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993)3 SCC 161, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that notice is yet to be served on the defendant. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the trial Court to decide the application either granting or rejecting an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction by providing proper reasons." 3. It is submitted that respondent No.1 is no more and already LR’s are on record. Respondent Advocate is representing respondents Nos.2 to 5. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30401 WP No. 13266 of 2026 4. In the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court, when an IA is filed seeking interim injunction, the trial court has to consider the case on the merit of it and if the party is aggrieved he will avail the appropriate remedy and without passing any order the trial court has issued the summons. Hence this court deems it appropriate to dispose of this matter as already respondents are appearing. 4. Accordingly, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to consider IA.No.1 within a period of 1 week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. ii. Whether the defendants filed their objections or not, the IA that is filed for interim injunction shall be considered by the trial court. iii. All pending I.As if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59