Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 35123 (KAR)

SRI. VEEREGOWDA, v. SRI. CHARAN

WP/25125/2026 · 2026-08-12

Lalitha Kanneganti

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010558352026 NC: 2026:KHC:42756 WP No. 25125 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.25125 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VEEREGOWDA, S/O LATE APPAIYANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O VEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SRI. PRAVEEN S/O VEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KAKULU POST, SHIVAKOTE PANCHYATI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, PIN: 560 089 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA REDDY R V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. CHARAN S/O LOKESH L.K AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010558352026 NC: 2026:KHC:42756 WP No. 25125 of 2026 2. SRI. MAHENDRA S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 3. SRI. GAJENDRA S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 4. SRI. MURALI S/O PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5. SRI. VIJENDRA S/O LATE ERAPPA @ MUKAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 6. SRI. GOPAL GOWDA S/O LATE KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 7. SRI. MADHU S/O VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 8. SRI. AMBARISH S/O MAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 9. SRI. MUNEGOWDA S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 10. SRI. AJAY S/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 11. SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010558352026 NC: 2026:KHC:42756 WP No. 25125 of 2026 12. SRI. RAKESH S/O LAKSHMIPATHI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 13. SRI. RAHUL S/O JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 14. SRI. VISHAL S/O GOPAL GOWDA L.K AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 15. SRI. BYREGOWDA S/O VEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 15 ARE RESIDING AT LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KAKULU POST, SHIVAKOTE PANCHYATI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, PIN – 560 089 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA REDDY R.V., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/08/2026 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL AT BANGALORE, IN M.A. NO.125/2026 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010558352026 NC: 2026:KHC:42756 WP No. 25125 of 2026 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 06.08.2026 passed in M.A.No.125/2026 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, whereby the Appellate Court had issued emergent notice on I.A.No.1, the petitioners are before this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ plaintiffs submits that if the petitioners have not made out any grounds for passing an order on I.A. No. 1, the Appellate Court ought to have passed an order on the merits of it, so that they would get an opportunity to assail it. But the Court cannot simply issue emergent notice. Now, the matter is posted on 15.10.2026. It is submitted that, as the suit schedule property is the road, if the petitioners are restrained from using the road, it will cause lot of hardship to the plaintiffs, and all these aspects were not considered. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010558352026 NC: 2026:KHC:42756 WP No. 25125 of 2026 3. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Appellate Court to consider I.A.No.1 in M.A.No.125/2026, on the merits of it, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42