- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18857 WP No. 6024 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6024 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. MANJE GOWDA S/O LATE B.N.RAJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT BITTAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE HALEKOTE POST HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573217. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF KARNATAKA M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE -01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201. 3. THE TAHSILDHAR HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN DISTRICT. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18857 WP No. 6024 of 2026 5. GURUMURTHY S/O RAJANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT HALEKOTE HOBLI MAVANOOR, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SUBRAMANYA .R, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR DIRECTION BY WAY OF REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11486/2025 DATED 25-04-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed assailing the order passed by this Court in WP.No.11486/2025 dated 25.04.2025 vide Annexure-"G", wherein this Court while allowing the writ petition has directed the police to take cognizance of the interim order and give protection to the petitioner as and when petitioner would seek such police protection. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order is obtained by the respondent behind the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18857 WP No. 6024 of 2026 back of petitioner and this order clearly prejudices petitioner's right to defend the suit filed by private respondent No. 5. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. 4. Facts leading to the case are as follows: Upon a careful and meticulous examination of the factual matrix, this Court finds that both the petitioner and respondent No.5 are asserting rival possessory rights over the suit schedule property, which is presently the subject matter of adjudication before a competent civil Court in O.S. No.233/2024. It is evident from the record that while the dispute is sub- judice, both parties have resorted to parallel and overlapping proceedings before different fora with an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18857 WP No. 6024 of 2026 apparent intent to secure advantage in asserting physical possession. Such conduct, in the considered opinion of this Court, is impermissible and tends to undermine the sanctity of judicial proceedings pending before the civil Court. 5. It is not in dispute that respondent No.5 has secured an ex parte order of temporary injunction in his favour in the suit instituted for injunction simpliciter. However, the records further disclose that the petitioner, upon service of summons, has entered appearance and has filed detailed objections along with a written statement contesting the claim of respondent No.5, including the grant of ex-parte interim injunction. The application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for short “CPC”), is thus pending consideration on merits. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18857 WP No. 6024 of 2026 6. Ordinarily, when a dispute pertaining to possession and civil rights is seized of by a competent civil Court, all ancillary or incidental issues are required to be adjudicated within the framework of such proceedings. Authorities exercising administrative or quasi-judicial powers are expected to exhibit restraint and defer to the jurisdiction of the civil Court. In the present case, respondent No.5, on the strength of an ex-parte interim order, has simultaneously approached the jurisdictional Tahsildar seeking fixation of boundaries and has also pursued proceedings for police protection. This Court is of the considered view that any action founded solely on an ex-parte interim order, particularly when the same is under challenge and pending reconsideration, cannot be permitted to culminate in alteration of the status of the property. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18857 WP No. 6024 of 2026 7. Further, it is significant to note that W.P. No.11486/2025 came to be filed by respondent No.5 without impleading the present petitioner, who is not only a contesting defendant in the civil suit but also a necessary and proper party to any proceedings affecting possession. The order obtained therein, therefore directly affects and prejudices petitioner’s right and therefore is liable to be interfered with, on this ground alone. 8. It is also made clear that the entitlement of respondent No.5 to seek any further consequential relief, including police protection, would necessarily depend upon the final adjudication of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. In the event the interim order is confirmed after contest, it would be open to respondent No.5 to seek - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18857 WP No. 6024 of 2026 enforcement and protection of such order in accordance with law. 9. In the above background, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attempt on the part of respondent No.5 to secure fixation of boundaries and to alter the physical features of the property, pending adjudication of the core dispute relating to possession, is wholly misconceived and amounts to a misadventure. The order passed by this Court in W.P. No.11486/2025, having been obtained without impleading a necessary party, cannot be sustained and is liable to be recalled. 10. This Court also deems it appropriate to observe that when a suit for injunction simpliciter involving disputed possession is pending adjudication, initiation or continuation of parallel proceedings before the revenue authorities for fixation of boundaries in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18857 WP No. 6024 of 2026 respect of the very same property is not maintainable. Consequently, even if any application is pending before respondent No.3–Tahsildar seeking such relief, the said authority shall refrain from proceeding further in the matter until the civil Court adjudicates upon the rights of the parties. 11. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, this Court notes that respondent No.5 has already invoked the jurisdiction of the civil Court by filing I.A. No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and has also filed I.A. No.4 seeking police protection under Section 151 of CPC. The proper course for respondent No.5 is to pursue these applications before the civil Court. The grant of police protection, particularly in matters relating to enforcement of civil rights and interim orders, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18857 WP No. 6024 of 2026 squarely falls within the domain and supervisory jurisdiction of the civil Court where the lis is pending. 12. Therefore this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 25.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.11486/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open to be adjudicated before the competent civil Court. (iv) Both parties are hereby directed to maintain status quo and shall not attempt to alter the nature, character, or possession of the suit schedule property, pending consideration and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18857 WP No. 6024 of 2026 disposal of I.A. No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. (v) It is clarified that respondent No.5 presently holds an ex-parte interim order of injunction, and any alleged violation thereof shall be brought to the notice of, and adjudicated by, the trial Court in accordance with law. (vi) Respondent No.3–Tahsildar shall defer all proceedings, if any, relating to fixation of boundaries of the subject property, until the civil Court renders a decision on the pending interlocutory applications. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56