- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34751 WP No. 20834 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 20834 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. J. K. VENTURES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1680/55, J. KRISHNA NILAYA, 10TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, BSK 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 050 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. K.G.KRISHNA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.S.HEMANTH BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KALIKIRI VARALAKSHMI W/O. K. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15, 2ND CROSS, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, UDAY NAGAR, CHIKKALASANDRA, BENGALURU -560 061 2. MRS. K. SUNITHA W/O. A. SATHISHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.52, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, 2ND LANE, NEAR GARUDA MARUTI SHOWROOM, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34751 WP No. 20834 of 2026 LALBAGH MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU -560 027 3. MRS. K. SARITHA W/O. S. VINAY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1160, APRAMEYA, 4TH FLOOR, 21ST CROSS, 14TH MAIN, SECTOR-3, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 102 4. SRI. KALIKIRI SUBRAMANYAM @ SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. K.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15, 2ND CROSS, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, UDAY NAGAR, CHIKKALASANDRA, BENGALURU 560 061 5. SRI. S.M. ANIL S/O. C. MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15, SAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, MUTHANALLUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562 125 6. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, SHIVAJINAGAR (INDIRANAGAR), BENGALURU 560 038 7. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, BASAVANAGUDI (ANEKAL), ANEKAL 562 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.MOHANA C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 SRI.SANJAY YADAV B., AGA FOR R6 AND R7) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34751 WP No. 20834 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/07/2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL IN O.S. NO.891/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED ON MEMO DATED: 06.07.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2026 passed in O.S.No.891/2026 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, where an application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was not considered by the trial Court, defendant No.2 is before this Court. However, the trial Court had heard the arguments of the parties on I.A. filed seeking interim injunction. 2. Learned Senior counsel representing the counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that when an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the trial Court has to consider the same before passing any orders on the injunction petition itself. He relied on the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Manakchand and Others Vs. Udairaj and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34751 WP No. 20834 of 2026 Others arising out of S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1823/2022 and another judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Rajpal Singh Vs. Sunderlal arising out of WP.No.14349/2014 dated 30.03.2016 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in R.K. Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu and Another1. Relying on this, it is submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 3. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 submits that defendant No.2 has filed a caveat. Accordingly, on the ad-interim application, the summons were served, and at his request, the matter was adjourned. On 06.07.2026, they sought a pass-over and have come up with this application in I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The trial Court rightly heard the matter and reserved it for orders, and rightly held that the application can be considered. 4. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to go into the aspect of whether, when an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the injunction application or the application 1 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 533 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34751 WP No. 20834 of 2026 for rejection of the plaint has to be decided first. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, as the trial Court has already heard I.A.Nos.1 and 2 for injunction and posted for orders, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to consider I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC within a period of 1 week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. ii. The respondent No.1/plaintiff is at liberty to file their objections within a period of four days from today and shall co-operate with the trial Court for deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. iii. This order will not preclude the trial Court from passing the orders on I.A.Nos.1 and 2. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33