- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010155032020 NC: 2026:KHC:38029 W.P. No.8996/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.8996/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. K.R. ANDAL AGED 75 YEARS W/O SRI. S.V. KRISHNAPRASAD NO.57, CHANNARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE ENTRANCE, 2ND MAIN ROAD VARTHUR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560087. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.A. KULKARNI, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN VENKATARAO ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018. 2. SREE CHENNARAYASWAMY TEMPLE VARTHUR VILLAGE VARTHUR -560087 REPRESENTED BY THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K R PURAM. 3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010155032020 NC: 2026:KHC:38029 W.P. No.8996/2020 MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU-560048. 4. SRI. B.K. RAJA REDDY PRESIDENT RAJAGOPURA CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE, BALEGERE PANATHUR POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. R. SUBRAMANI, ADV., R3 SRI. ABHINAV, ADV., FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.I IN O.S.NO.8079/2019 ANNEXURE-O BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGLAURU (CCH-25). CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.I FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.8079/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010155032020 NC: 2026:KHC:38029 W.P. No.8996/2020 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.02.2020 passed on IA.Nos.1 and 2 in OS.No.8079/2019 by the III Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-25) (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. Sri.P.A.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit against the BBMP and other State authorities seeking a judgment and decree against the defendants from blocking the access road to the plaintiff’s house by constructing a Rajagopuram by granting perpetual injunction along with other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed IA.No.1 under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), seeking leave of the Court to file the suit by dispensing issuance of notice to the authorities and IA.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court rejected IA.No.1 and returned the plaint, directing the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010155032020 NC: 2026:KHC:38029 W.P. No.8996/2020 plaintiff to comply with Section 80(c) of the CPC and Section 482 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and then present the plaint. However, it is submitted that the trial court committed a further error in rejecting IA.No.2 seeking temporary injunction. It is further submitted that once the Court came to the conclusion that the plaint was required to be returned for non-compliance of mandatory notice, it could not have passed an order on an application for temporary injunction. 3. It is also submitted that the petitioner has filed a memo dated 23.07.2026 along with copies of the correspondence between the petitioner/plaintiff and the defendants/respondents herein. The said correspondence indicates that the Jurisdictional Tahsildar, Muzrai Department, including the public representative of the said Assembly Constituency had agreed to allot an alternate site to the petitioner/plaintiff and that the file was processed. However, no further steps have been taken by - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010155032020 NC: 2026:KHC:38029 W.P. No.8996/2020 the authorities till date. It is contended that if the authorities provide an alternate site, the petitioner/plaintiff would able to shift from the premises, which would help the devotees and also to the institution for ingress and egress. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition and further seeks to issue direction to the authorities to consider the petitioner's request for allotment of an alternate site. 4. Per contra, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.R.Subramani, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.Abhinav R., learned counsel for respondent No.4 support the impugned order of the trial Court and submit that the trial Court taking note of the fact that the plaintiff had failed to show the urgency, rightly returned the plaint. It is submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, as it is always open to him to issue notice and thereafter present the plaint. It is further submitted that insofar as proposal for - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010155032020 NC: 2026:KHC:38029 W.P. No.8996/2020 allotment of an alternate site is concerned, the said issue is beyond the prayer sought in the petition and the petitioner has to work out their remedy in accordance with law. Hence, they seek to dismiss the writ petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner filed a suit seeking a judgment and decree against the defendants, their men, agents etc., from blocking the access road to the plaintiff’s house by constructing a Rajagopuram by granting perpetual injunction and other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed IA.No.1 under Section 80(2) of the CPC seeking leave of the Court to dispense issuance of notice and IA.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court, under the impugned order rejected both the IAs and returned the plaint. At the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010155032020 NC: 2026:KHC:38029 W.P. No.8996/2020 outset, it is required to be noticed that when the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaint was liable to be returned, it ought not to have proceeded to consider I.A.No.2 on merits. Hence, impugned order insofar as it relates to IA.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC is hereby set aside. 7. Insofar as the order on IA.No.1 is concerned, the trial Court, taking note of the fact that there is no absolute urgency pointed out in filing the suit, directed the return of the plaint. I do not find any error in the said order calling for interference. It is needless to observe that the plaintiff can issue notice to the defendants, as required under law, and thereafter re-present the plaint. 8. Insofar as the other contention of the petitioner with regard to allotment of an alternate site is concerned, the plaintiff has placed correspondence between the authorities which indicates that there was some move for allotment of an alternate site in favour of the petitioner. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010155032020 NC: 2026:KHC:38029 W.P. No.8996/2020 However, the said issue cannot be gone into in the present proceedings as the present writ petition is restricted only to examine the correctness of the order dated 14.02.2020 passed on IA.Nos.1 and 2 in OS.No.8079/2019. Hence, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to work out his remedies with regard to allotment of site, as sought in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21