- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34433 W.P. No.2639/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.2639/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: E. MUNISWAMYRAJU S/O LATE RAMASWAMYRAJU AGED 63 YEARS R/O HULLAHALLI VILLAGE HULLAHALLI HOBLI NANJANAGUD TQ 571314 MYSURU DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADV.,) AND: 1. JALAJAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SWAMY AGED 58 YEARS. 2. MANIKANTA W/O LATE SWAMY AGED 37 YEARS. 3. RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O RANGASWAMY SETTY AGED 58 YEARS. 4. GURI S/O BHASKAR AGED 58 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34433 W.P. No.2639/2022 ALL ARE R/AT HEGGADAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI NANJANGUD TQ MYSURU DIST 571301. 5. PUTTATHAYAMMA W/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED 71 YEARS. 6. KEMPEGOWDA AGED 76 YEARS. 7. SIDDARAJU S/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED 55 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE R/AT MAHADESHWARA LAYOUT HULLAHALLI ROAD NANJANGUD TOWN-571301 MYSURU DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. SHARATH KUMAR, ADV., FOR R1 TO R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NANJANGUD PASSED IN M.A.NO.17/2019, DATED 14.12.2021, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ORDERS OF THE LEARNED FIRST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NANJANGUD PASSED IN O.S.NO.433/2018 DATED 03.09.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ON I.A.NO.1 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34433 W.P. No.2639/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i) “Issue Writ of Certiorari, setting aside the Impugned Orders passed by the learned senior civil judge and JMFC Nanjangud passed in M.A.No.17/2019, dated 14.12.2021, vide Annexure-G and orders of the learned first additional civil judge and JMFC at Nanjangud passed in OS No.433/2018 dated 03.09.2019 vide Annexure-E on I.A.no.1 ii) Pleased to pass any other order or direction as this Honourable Court feels deemed fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Sri.P.Mahesha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.433/2018 for injunction against the respondents-defendants mainly contending that there exists a cart road as per the suit schedule property and along with the plaint, the petitioner filed an application for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34433 W.P. No.2639/2022 temporary injunction which was rejected by the trial Court and the same was affirmed by the appellate Court. It is submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have incorrectly come to the conclusion that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are seriously disputed by the defendants and as per the documents placed, the survey was conducted on 06.03.2018. However, the mahazar indicates that the survey was conducted on 12.03.2018. It is further submitted that even the plaintiff has produced the Land Survey records, Village Map, Atlas, tippani, patta book, which clearly indicate that there exists a cart road and the plaintiff has every right to make use of the same. However, the trial Court has not appreciated any of the said aspects and proceeded to reject the application for temporary injunction, which was affirmed by the appellate Court on the similar reasoning. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34433 W.P. No.2639/2022 3. Per contra, Sri.B.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 supports the impugned orders of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and submits that both the Courts, on appreciating the pleading in the application, objections and material placed, have come to conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish prima facie case for granting injunction, and granting injunction would harm the other side and proceeded to reject the application. Hence, the same does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.433/2018 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking prayer to restrain - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34433 W.P. No.2639/2022 the defendants from interfering with the use of the cart road in schedule ‘A’ property by the plaintiff. The said application was duly considered and rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 03.09.2019. The plaintiff assailed the said order of the trial Court before the appellate Court in M.A.No.17/2019. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the trial Court vide order dated 14.12.2021. 6. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of the Schedule B property and there exists a Government cart road on the eastern side of the defendants’ property and there is obstruction from the defendants to the plaintiff from using the said cart road and to substantiate the existence of the cart road, the plaintiff has produced the records i.e. Village Map, patta book, Survey Records, Tippani, as well as the Atlas. The plaintiff has also produced a letter addressed by the Tahasildar dated 03.05.2017 requesting his subordinate to fix the cart road by measuring and handing over the same - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34433 W.P. No.2639/2022 free from encroachment. Based on such letter, the Surveyor and the Revenue Inspector measured the property as is evident from the letter dated 16.05.2017. The petitioner-plaintiff has also relied on the letter dated 06.10.2017 which indicates that the date of conducting the survey and measurement is scheduled on 26.10.2017 and they have sought the police protection. Another letter dated 02.03.2018 placed by the plaintiff which was issued by the Tahasildar to the police seeking police protection mentioning the date of conducting survey as 06.03.2018 and further the mahazar is also produced. The said mahazar indicates that the Revenue Inspector and the Surveyor has conducted survey on 12.03.2018. The aforesaid documents are inconsistent with regard to the date of conducting survey and the dates mentioned in the documents with regard to the same. 7. The defendants have specifically raised the objection stating that on 12.03.2018 no survey was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34433 W.P. No.2639/2022 conducted and notice of the survey was also not issued to them. 8. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that these documents are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case to grant the temporary injunction against the defendants, who claim to be the owners of the suit schedule property. Noticing that more harm will be caused to the defendants, if the injunction is granted, the trial Court rejected the said application, which was affirmed by the appellate Court. I do not find any error in the orders of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court calling for interference in this petition. 9. It is required to be noticed that the documents produced by the plaintiff from the year 2017 to 2018 which are the correspondence as well as the mahazar indicate regarding conducting of survey to find out the actual cart road and for removal of encroachment. In my - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34433 W.P. No.2639/2022 considered view, those documents are inconsistent with each other and hence, based on such documents, injunction cannot be granted. However, this Court also cannot ignore the fact that in the Village Map and other Revenue Records, there is a depiction of the cart road. Hence, it would be appropriate for the plaintiff to seek appointment of the Survey Officer to conduct the survey and measure the property which would resolve the dispute between the parties. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the orders under challenge. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33