- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525122022 NC: 2026:KHC:38869 W.P. No.22762/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22762/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. A.G. SHIVAKUMAR SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS. GEETHA W/O LATE A.G. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 2. A.G. RUDRAKUMAR S/O LATE A.G. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 3. ROOPA D/O LATE A.G. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT ARALIKOPPA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK -577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV.,) AND: 1. PREMAKUMAR S/O ESHWARA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 2. KUMARA NAIKA S/O SHANKARA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525122022 NC: 2026:KHC:38869 W.P. No.22762/2022 3. SURESH S/O SHANKAR NAIKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 4. SHANTHA KUMAR S/O KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 5. SAKRYA NAIKA S/O GOPYA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 6. PAPI BAI W/O SEVYANAIKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 7. RAVI S/O SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 8. KAVITHA W/O CHANDRA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. ALL ARE R/O ARALIKOPPA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJAYA S. NAYAKA, ADV., FOR SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADV., FOR R1 TO R8) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.10.22 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI ON I.A. NO. 18 IN O.S. NO.111/2019 REFUSING TO RENDER POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONERS PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-R & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525122022 NC: 2026:KHC:38869 W.P. No.22762/2022 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 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.10.2022 passed on I.A.No.18 in O.S.No.111/2019 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).’ 2. Heard Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Sanjaya S.Nayaka, learned counsel appearing for Sri.H.N.Basavaraju, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 8. 3. The petitioners had filed a suit against the respondents in O.S.No.146/2018 for an injunction showing the suit schedule property as Sy.No.37/1 measuring 21 guntas of land in Aralikoppa Village, Bhadravathi Taluk with chakkubandis. In the said suit, the petitioners- plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525122022 NC: 2026:KHC:38869 W.P. No.22762/2022 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) which was numbered as I.A.No.IV. Upon considering the rival submissions, the Trial Court vide order dated 24.02.2020 allowed the application by directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The petitioners assailed the said order in an appeal on the ground that the Trial Court ought not to have ordered for maintaining status quo and it ought to have restrained the defendants from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Appellate Court in M.A.No.14/2020 vide order dated 27.08.2020 dismissed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Trial Court on I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC. In effect, the order of status quo granted by the Trial Court was set aside by the Appellate Court. The records indicate that the petitioners-plaintiffs assailed the order of the Appellate - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525122022 NC: 2026:KHC:38869 W.P. No.22762/2022 Court before this Court in W.P.No.13510/2020 and this Court, vide order dated 04.04.2022 passed the following order: “6. Considering the finding recorded by the revenue Authorities stated above, as the fact would clearly establish that the petitioners are in possession of the suit schedule property and the said aspect has not been properly appreciated by both the courts below, I am of the view that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure in IA.IV is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the both the Courts below, declining to allow IA.IV is set aside, granting interim relief, restraining defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 24th February, 2020 and 27th August, 2020 passed by the trial Court and First Appellate Court respectively, are set aside”. 4. The records indicate that the petitioners- plaintiffs thereafter filed an application in I.A.No.XVIII under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking police protection. The Trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525122022 NC: 2026:KHC:38869 W.P. No.22762/2022 said application by recording the reason that there is an order of police help to implement the order of the Trial Court in I.A.No.XVI. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Trial Court initially ordered the parties to maintain status quo which was set aside by the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs which was reversed by this Court in W.P.No.13510/2020 and this Court specifically allowed I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC. Hence, there is a clear order of temporary injunction granted by this Court against the defendants in the suit. However, the Trial Court has misread the order and rejected the application. Considering the order of this Court dated 04.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.13510/2020 extracted supra, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for police protection. At this stage, it is made clear that in the petitioners’ application found at Annexure-Q to the writ - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525122022 NC: 2026:KHC:38869 W.P. No.22762/2022 petition, the prayer is sought to put up fence to the property. In my considered view, such a prayer cannot be granted but the said application shall be considered as to seek police assistance / police help. 5. With the aforesaid observation, I am of the view that the Trial Court is required to re-consider the plaintiffs’ application seeking police protection in accordance with law, keeping in mind the order of this Court in W.P.No.13510/2020 referred supra. 6. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 14.10.2022 passed in O.S.No.111/2019 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, is set aside. (iii) The application of the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking police protection / police help is - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525122022 NC: 2026:KHC:38869 W.P. No.22762/2022 restored. The Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44