- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 835 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. B N PRABHAKAR S/O B.S. NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BODAGUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK ALSO RESIDING AT NO.2375, 2ND FLOOR, SANJEEVINI NAGAR MAIN ROAD, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 092 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARUN J. PATIL FOR SRI. MAHAMAD TAHIR A., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. MR. K.R. NARAYANSWAMY, S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DEVARAMARLUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK – 562 105 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT (UNREPTD)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.8.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021 CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SIDLAGHATTA ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.291/2020 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, 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 08.12.2020 passed on IA.No.1 in OS.No.291/2020 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta (for short ‘the trial Court’) and order dated 04.01.2021 passed in MA.No.23/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta (for short ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Sri.Varun J. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against the respondent. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction, which came to be rejected by trial Court solely on the ground that the defendant had earlier filed a suit for partition, which was dismissed and that an appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021 pending for consideration. It is submitted that the said appeal filed by the defendant also came to be dismissed on 20.09.2025. It is further submitted that the order of the trial Court dated 08.12.2020 was assailed before the First Appellate Court; however, the First Appellate Court assigned the same reasons as the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is also submitted that the petitioner purchased the suit schedule property from one Smt.Munithayamma under a registered sale deed dated 06.08.2020, which was registered on 12.08.2020 and thereafter, the petitioner/ plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and all the records were mutated in his name. It is contended that none of the aspect has been considered by the trial Court and has proceeded to reject the application, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, he seeks to grant temporary injunction as the defendant is regularly disturbing the peaceful possession and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021 enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Despite service of notice, there is no representation of the respondent. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed OS.No.291/2020 seeking the relief of temporary injunction against the defendant. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff by way of trespass, creating nuisance etc. The said application was opposed by the defendant by filing a written statement to the plaint as well as objections to the said application. The trial Court, vide order dated 08.12.2020, rejected the application considering the rival contentions and recorded the finding that the defendant had instituted a suit in OS.No.3/2015 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021 against the vendor of the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession, which had been dismissed. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred RA.No.55/2020 which was pending consideration. The trial Court in its dismissal order dated 08.12.2020 in OS.No.291/2020 stated that until the rights in the said appeal are decided, no temporary injunction can be granted. The Appellate Court reiterated the same reasons and dismissed the appeal. 5. It is to be noticed that the petitioner/plaintiff acquired the right over the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 06.08.2020, which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sidlaghatta on 12.08.2020. The plaintiff has also produced, along with a memo, a copy of GPA dated 04.08.2020, registered sale deed dated 12.08.2020, the encumbrance certificate in Form No.15, and the RTC extracts pertaining to the suit schedule property. The aforesaid documents unequivocally make it clear that the plaintiff is able to prove the prima facie case before the trial Court that the plaintiff has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021 acquired the right over the suit schedule property and is in lawful possession of the same. The finding of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that the proceedings initiated by the defendant against the vendor of the plaintiff is pending has no merit, as the appeal in RA.No.55/2020 filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree in OS.No.3/2015 has also been dismissed on 20.09.2025. 6. If the defendant has preferred a regular second appeal against the judgment in RA.No.55/2020, the right of the defendant is required to be adjudicated in an appeal. Be that as it may, the material on record clearly indicates that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and he has pleaded that the defendant is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In my considered view, the possession of the plaintiff is required to be protected during the pendency of the said suit and no harm or prejudice would be caused to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021 the other side, if temporary injunction is granted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 08.12.2020 passed on IA.No.1 in OS.No.291/2020 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta and order dated 04.01.2021 passed in MA.No.23/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlghatta are hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1and 2 of the CPC is hereby allowed. iii. The respondent/defendant his men, agent, contractors, servants claiming under him are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021 of the plaintiff during the pendency of the said suit. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18