- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20070 WP No. 10980 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.10980 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. SUBRAMANIAM S/O LATE SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. RESIDING AT NO.919, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 4TH ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINOD S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI P. VISWANATH S/O LATE M PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 2. SMT. V. SAHANA D/O SRI P VISWANATH, AGED MAJOR, 3. SMT . V. SUPRAJA D/O SRI P. VISWANATH, AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.153/2, 5TH MAIN, PRAKASHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. U. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20070 WP No. 10980 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 03.01.2026 PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-14 C/C OF CCH 13) AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-plaintiff has called in question the order dated 03.01.2026 passed on I.A.No.III filed under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.8049/2019 by the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru C/c V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby Trial Court has allowed the said application and permitted defendant Nos.2 and 3 to repair and reconnect the borewell situated in common passage in schedule ‘B’ property. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is not with regard to the interim order. His contention is that the order passed by the Trial Court was only for the limited purpose of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20070 WP No. 10980 of 2026 repairing and reconnecting the borewell situated in the common passage in Schedule ‘B’ property. However, taking advantage of the said order, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are digging the road and laying a new pipeline, which is contrary to the order passed by the Trial Court. 3. If that be the case, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file an application before the Trial Court seeking modification or vacation of the said order, or to initiate appropriate proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the CPC for violation of the order. 4. Therefore, no ground is made out to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 5. All the contentions of the parties are left open. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22