Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25752 (KAR)

SRI DR DEVAIAH v. SRI MALLENGADA G VINESH

WP/1348/2023 · 2026-07-01

Vijaykumar A Patil

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32798 WP No. 1348 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1348 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DR. DEVAIAH, S/O SRI. MAPAGANDA N. POOVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SRI. MAPANGADA N. POOVAIAH, S/O LATE M.M. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS 3. SMT. SHEELA M.P. W/O SRI. MAPAGANDA N. POOVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NITTOR VILLAGE AND POST, SOUTH KODAGU, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 216 (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN IS NOT CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJANNA C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MALLENGADA G VINESH S/O MALLENGADA C GANAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. SRI MALLENGADA PONNAPPA S/O MALLENGADA GANAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32798 WP No. 1348 of 2023 3. SRI. MALLENGADA GANAPATHY, S/O LATE M.G. CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 4. SMT. M.P. SHRUTI W/O MALLENGADA PONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 5. SMT. K.B. PADMAVATHI W/O MALLENGADA VINESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 6. SMT. LATHA D/O M.G. GANAPATHY, W/O AIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKAMANDUR VILLAGE AND POST, SOUTH KODAGU, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 217 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R6) - - - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/01/2023 PASSED IN M.A NO.2/2022 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJPET BY CONFIRMING THE ORDERS PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IN O.S.NO.1/2022 BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PONNAMPET, KODAGU DISTRICT ANNEXURE-A. AND ETC, THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32798 WP No. 1348 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.01.2023 passed in M.A.No.2/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge, Virajpet, (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Rajanna C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.N.Jagadish Baliga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. 3. The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.1/2022 seeking the relief of injunction against the respondents herein. In the said suit, the Trial Court allowed the application in I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, vide order dated 16.03.2022. The said order was assailed by the defendants in M.A.No.2/2022 and the Appellate Court vide order dated 06.01.2023 has set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 16.03.2022. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32798 WP No. 1348 of 2023 4. Though various contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered view that the same need not be gone into in the present proceedings as this Court while entertaining the writ petition has ordered the parties to maintain status quo vide order dated 05.10.2023 and the said order is in force till this day and both the counsel agreed to continue the interim order till the disposal of suit. Therefore, interest of justice would be met if the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is disposed of. (ii) The parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. (iii) The Trial Court shall consider the early disposal of the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32798 WP No. 1348 of 2023 (iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 5. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49