- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1051 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MANJU @ MANJUNATHA S/O POOJARI KALASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2. SRI. LOKESHA @ LOKI S/O POOJARI KALASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 3. SRI.POOJARI KALASAIAH S/O LATE GIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) 4. SRI.DHARMA, S/O LATE GIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 5. SRI.NAGA S/O LATE GIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT GIDADA CHANNAPURA VILLAGE, BOMMANAYAKANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALAL TALUK, PIN – 571432. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIKANTH B.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 AND: SMT A M JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O E.S NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT ERAKANAGHATTA VILLAGE, SATHENAHALLI POST, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANAGLA TALUK PIN-571802. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/10/2024 PASSED ON APPLICATION/IA NO.9 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF, UNDER SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NAGAMANGALA , IN O.S.NO.142/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.142/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 30.10.2024, whereby the application I.A.No.9 filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking direction to the jurisdictional Police Authorities to enforce and implement the order passed on I.A.No.1 for temporary injunction dated 30.08.2019 was allowed by the trial Court by holding as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 ORDER ON I.A No.IX The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed this application U/s.151 praying this court to give direction to the Nagamangala Rural Police for enforcement of order passed on I.A No.1 on 30.8.2019 in this suit in respect of the suit schedule property. 2. The Plaintiff has sworn to an affidavit in support of this application, wherein she has stated that, she has the above suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants herein. She has filed application U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction against the defendants herein. This court after considering their application and after hearing both sides was pleased to allowed the said application and restrained the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. 3. It is stated that, this court allowed their application for temporary injunction in the presence of defendants herein, the defendants are well aware and knowledge about the temporary injunction granted by this court, the defendants till today not filed any appeal being aggrieved by the temporary injunction granted by this court, therefore the order passed by this court is attained the finality. 4. It is stated that, the suit schedule property is the agriculture land, themselves and their entire family is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 depending upon the income derived from this land to lead their livelihood, it is stated that defendants without having any right or interest over the suit schedule property are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, it is stated that the defendants in violation of the temporary injunction granted by this court interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, this court granted temporary injunction on 30-08-2019, but the defendants on 07-02-2020 when the Taluk Surveyor visited the land to conduct survey, at this time the defendants came near the suit property with their supporters and obstructed the Taluk Surveyor to measure the land, again on 14.02.2020 the Taluk Surveyor visited the uit property to conduct the survey, at this time also the defendants obstructed to conduct the survey, therefore the surveyor written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner to take action against the defendants, it is further stated that, the survey was conducted with the police protection, from these facts it is clearly goes to show that the defendants are violating the temporary injunction granted by this court. 5. It is stated that she is harvested Ragi and other corps in the suit schedule property the defendants with their supporter came near the suit property and obstructed her to conduct agricultural operations, therefore she has filed Mis. No. 14/2019 before this court U/o 39 Rule 2(a) R/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure requesting this court to detain the defendants in vivil prison, the said proceedings is still pending before this court, she further stated that, the defendants after ex-parte temporary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 injunction granted by this court interfered with the possession, as such she has filed similar application before this court seeking police protection, but this court disposed off the said application on the ground that final order was passed. 6. It is stated that, the defendants without adhereing to the temporary injunction granted by this court interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. due to illegal act of the defendants she could not above to conduct agricultural operations in the suit schedule property, it is stated that she is visited the jurisdictional police station on several occasions and requested them to give police protection to Implement the temporary injunction granted by this court, but the Jurisdictional police refused to give protection on the ground that the dispute between the parties is in civil nature and also insisted her to obtain necessary directions from this court, it is further stated that the police protection is very much necessary to implement the temporary injunction granted by this court. without the police protection she could not able to enjoy the fruits of interim order granted to this court, under these circumstances It is just and necessary to direct the jurisdictional police to give police protection, if this application is allowed to harm whatsoever could be caused to other side per contra she will be put to heavy and irreparable loss. Hence filed this application. 7. The learned counsel for the defendants filed objection on application. Wherein he has stated that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 application filed by the plaintiff is not in accordance with law, because the same applicant was already filed i.e. I.A. No.3 and was also dismissed by this court on 11-07-2019 on the basis of the temporary injunction order issued by this court and Res-judicata under Section 9 of C.P.C. applicable for this application. 8. It is further submitted that, the application filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous, vexations suit with intention to vacate the defendants from the suit land and harass the defendants and to drag the case. They are uneducated and schedule caste people. Plaintiff is taking this undue advantage she is try to vacate the defendants from the suit schedule property. As such the defendants are entitled exemplary cost from the plaintiffs. 9. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was purchased the landed property from one Shivalingegowda in same Sy.No.8 of Danayakanakote village, Bindiganavile Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk. But, the plaintiff transfer the same to his wife through registered gift deed on 27-04- 2019, by putting the defendants boundary them she filing this suit before this court. And get the temporary injunction order from this court to the originally purchased property not for the defendant's property which the boundary mentioned in the suit. But, the plaintiff intentionally putting the defendant's property schedule to grab the defendants property as a suit property. The alleged documents produced by the plaintiff is only with respect to purchased property. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 10. It is further submitted that, in her affidavit, suit schedule property originally belongs to one Eregowda Kengegowda through GDR No.74/1961-62 dated 28-11- 1962. After the death, his son by name K. Shivalingegowda was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property through IHC No.1/1990-91. The Shivalingegowda was sold the suit property to the husband of the plaintiff with extent of suit property with same schedule, it is shown by the registered sale deed copy produced by the plaintiff, but the schedule is different as per the sale deed. Applicant is given wrong boundary 1.e.. defendants property boundary in the plaint schedule as well as the gift deed intentionally to grab the defendants property. 11. It is further submitted that originally the land bearing Sy.No.8 measuring 4 acres of land situated at Danayakanakote village, Bindiganavile Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, bounded on East by Government Hall, West by Karab land and Government halla. North by Sy.No.32's land of Lakshmana and South by Karab land and Government Halla. Was granted in favour of one late Savitramma W/o Giddaiah, the grand mother of the defendant No. 1. 2. 4 and 5 and mother of the defendant No.3 under the grant certificate in GDR No.74/62-63, by Tahasildar of Nagamangala Taluk. Ever since from the date of grant the Savitramma was hold the possession, and after her death defendants are in continuous possession and enjoyment of said property. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 12. It is further submitted that subsequently the defendants made an application to the Tahasilder, Nagamangala for change of khata in respect of said property. The defendants are paying the land revenue to the concerned authority. The plaintiff have given a wrong boundary that is the boundary of the defendants to the suit survey number. As for their sale deed. The suit survey number and boundary are different. The defendants imporved the land in the suit boundary and planted Ragi. Uruli, coconut trees and other crops in the defendant's property. 13. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff is not entitled the relief of police protection, plaintiff is intentionally suppress the real facts before this court. 14. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was already filled the same application under section 151 of C.P.C. to give the police protection before this court, but this application was dismissed by this court long back on dated 06-01-2020. Hence prayed for dismiss the present application. 15. Heard the counsels appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 16. Now the following points are arise for consideration of this court. 1. Whether the Plaintiff has made out a grounds to allow his application? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 2. What order? 17. The findings of this court on the above points are as under Point No. 1 In the affirmative. Point No.2 : As per the final order, for the following; REASONS 18. Point No.1: The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiff has sought the relief of temporary injunction against the defendants in respect of suit schedule property 19. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted even though this court has passed temporary injunction on 30/8/2019 on IA No 1. defendants have not stopped their illegal activities and they are trying to interfering in the suit schedule property. Even though complaint has been made before the police station, they have not taken any action against the defendants. Further submitted that, unless given police protection plaintiffs can't enjoy the relief sought by this court. 20. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that plaintiff had filed similar application as IA. No III. Same was dismissed by this court. Hence present application is hit by res-judicata. Hence this present application is liable to be rejected. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 21. In light of arguments canvased by the counsel for parties, this court has perused the materials on record. After perused the same it appears that on 30.08.2019 this court has allowed IA No.1 filed under 39 rule 1 and 2 of CPC and passed temporary injunction in favour Plaintiff against the Defendants, restrained them, their agents, servants or anybody claimed under them from Interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the Plaintiff till disposal of the suit. No doubts that Plaintiff had filed similar application as IA.III under section 151 of CPC seeking police protection and same was dismissed on 17.9.2019. But at the time of filing of said application IA.No.1 had not been disposed on merit. Hence this court has dismissed IA.III. Therefore this court is of opinion that present application is not hit by res-judicata. 22. Once court passed the order in respect of IA No.1 which was filed U/o XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec.151 of CPC against the defendants and thereby restrained the interference of the defendants till disposal of the case, it is the duty of the defendants to obey the order passed by this court unless challenged the said order and set-aside before the appellant court. when the Defendants has not challenged the Order on IA No.1 said fact, it can be concluded that the Defendants have interfered with the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, it is enough to hold that, they are interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property even after passing the order by this court. Hence, in the above observation the plaintiff has - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 proved that necessary of police protection for enforce the court order and safeguard the suit schedule properties. If not allowed the above said application plaintiffs will be put to hardship and injury. Hence, in the above observation answered point No.1 in the affirmative. 23. Point No.2: In view of the discussion of point no. 1. proceed to pass the following; ORDER I.A.No.IX filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff U/s 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. The PSI of Nagamangala Rural police station is hereby directed for enforce court order on IA. No. I dated 30.8.2019.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. It is an undisputed fact and a matter of record that the order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the trial Court allowing I.A.No.1 has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioners, who have not challenged the same. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the trial Court was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.9 filed by the respondent to enforce the order of temporary injunction passed on I.A.No.1, which had not - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6631 WP No. 1051 of 2025 been challenged by the petitioners and the same had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioner. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29