- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31976 WP No. 17376 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. 17376 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. V. MUNIKRISHNA S/O LATE MR. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. MRS. RAMAMANI, W/O MR. V. MUNIKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF TALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 060 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. L. RAVI S/O LATE MR. K.B. LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. MR. L. SRIDHAR, S/O LATE MR. K.B. LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 3. MR. L. KUMAR, S/O LATE MR. K.B. LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31976 WP No. 17376 of 2026 RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE K.B. LAKSHMAN (ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF NO.1), ALL R/AT NO. 1, KUMAR NURSERY, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU - 560 062. 4. MR. K. MANJUNATH, S/O MR. R.K. MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1, KUMAR NURSERY, NEW BANK COLONY, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU - 560 062 5. SMT. V. PUTTAMMA D/O LATE VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS TALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 060 6. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS TALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560 060 7. SMT. H.V. SAVITHA D/O SMT. V. PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 8. SHRI. H.V. RAVIKUMAR S/O SMT. V. PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31976 WP No. 17376 of 2026 9. SHRI. H V. MANJUNATH S/O SMT. V. PUTTANAMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS SL.NO. 7 TO 9 ARE R/AT: NO.35, HONACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 10. SHRI. T. SHIVMURTHY S/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT: NO.38, 2ND MAIN, BTM 1ST STAGE, KEB LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 029 11. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 12. SHRI. PUNEETH S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. SL.NO.11 & 12 ARE R/AT: NO.329, 3RD CROSS, LIBRARY ROAD, TALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE, BENGALURU - 560 060 13. SHRI. SHANTHA KUMAR S/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT: NO.168/30, VYALIKAVAL, SADASHIVA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 003. 14. SRI. DHANYA KUMAR, S/O CHIKKULLIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31976 WP No. 17376 of 2026 R/AT NO.33, 60FT ROAD, KEB LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU – 94 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHNAKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10-04-2026 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN M.A. NO. 23 OF 2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in M.A.No.23/2026 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. The plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.910/2020 before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, for specific performance or alternative monetary relief valued at Rs.97,59,750/-. In that suit, the plaintiffs had filed I.A.Nos.1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31976 WP No. 17376 of 2026 and 2. I.A.No.1 was filed seeking an injunction, and I.A.No.2 was filed seeking an injunction restraining the defendant from changing the nature of the property. The trial Court, by order dated 15.10.2022, had dismissed both the I.As. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiffs filed MFA.No.1026/2023 and MFA.No.1037/2023. In MFA.No.1026/2023, an interim order was passed on 01.03.2023, whereby both the parties were directed not to alienate, encumber or create third-party rights till the next date of hearing. Liberty was reserved in favour of the respondents to seek modification or vacation of the order. 3. The defendants started making construction after obtaining the bank loan. The plaintiffs then filed I.A.No.12 seeking to stop further construction. The trial Court dismissed I.A.No.12 on the ground of delay and latches but directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the advance amount claimed, which was subsequently deposited. The matter was carried by filing M.A.No.23/2026 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The Appellate Court passed the impugned order, setting aside the order of the trial Court, restraining - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31976 WP No. 17376 of 2026 defendant No.1 from putting up further constructions over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit, and directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within 4 months from the date of receipt of the order. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the arguments on the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court and the circular issued by the High Court. However, the submissions have been confined to the merits of M.A.No.23/2026. It is submitted that after the suit was filed in the year 2020, I.A.No.12 was filed in the year 2026, when the structure rose to ground +3 floors. It is submitted that the plaintiffs will not claim equities if the suit is dismissed. In fact, they have taken money from the bank, and if the construction is stalled, it would cause a lot of hardship. These aspects were not considered by the Appellate Court. It is submitted that the findings of the Appellate Court are perverse. In fact, the trial Court had directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that while passing the impugned order, the Appellate Court observed that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31976 WP No. 17376 of 2026 if the defendants are allowed to complete the construction and let out the property, then even if the plaintiffs prove their case, they have to take action against those persons who will be in possession of the property, which leads to multiplicity of proceedings. When the transaction is admitted, the termination notice is disputed, and payment of sale consideration in part is admitted and in part is disputed. The plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case. When the matter is pendente lite, there is no necessity to invest the money. The Court observed that the balance of convenience lies more in favour of the plaintiffs than the defendants. Irreparable loss and injury are also in favour of the plaintiffs. Further, in one of the photographs, it is shown that there is a ‘To let’ board. This shows the intention of the defendants to let out the property, which will lead to multiplicity of proceedings, and accordingly, the M.A. was allowed. It is submitted that this observation of the Appellate Court is contrary to law, and in fact, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the application was filed with delay and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31976 WP No. 17376 of 2026 6. Learned Senior Counsel representing learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Appellate Court had rightly granted an injunction, as letting out or selling the property by the petitioner would cause considerable hardship to the defendants and lead to multiplicity of proceedings. It is submitted that, considering all these aspects, the Appellate Court had rightly granted the injunction and there are no grounds to interfere. 7. When this Court has specifically pointed out that there is an order of the High Court in MFA.No.1023/2026, wherein an interim order was passed on 01.03.2023, directing both parties not to alienate, encumber or create third-party rights in the suit schedule property till the next date of hearing and the Court has protected the defendants by granting an order in the said MFA. What difficulty would the defendants face if the plaintiff continues with the construction? Learned Senior Counsel representing learned counsel for the defendants submits that if they do not let out the properties, they have no objection. Learned Senior Counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the clients who are - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31976 WP No. 17376 of 2026 present in the court, submits that they will not let out the property and, if any modification of the order in MFA is required, they would be approaching the Court where the MFA is pending. Unless and until the said order is modified, they are bound by the said order and will not create any encumbrance with regard to the suit schedule property. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the materials on record. Earlier, when I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 were dismissed on 15.10.2022, MFAs were filed. In the MFAs, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court protected the interests of the defendants. The Appellate Court ought not to have granted an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from proceeding with the construction, considering the fact that the application is filed when the construction had reached the third floor level. The plaintiffs have taken a loan and are proceeding with the construction. It is stated that they will not claim any equities, and in the light of the order passed in MFA, they cannot alienate or create any third-party rights. In the considered opinion of this Court, there cannot be any apprehension of multiplicity of proceedings as argued on behalf of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31976 WP No. 17376 of 2026 defendants. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. The order dated 10.04.2026 passed in M.A.No.23/2026 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, is set aside. ii. The petitioners can proceed with construction. However, they shall adhere to the order passed in MFA.No.1023/2026. In the light of the same, they cannot let out the property or create any third-party rights. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45