- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6312 WP No. 393 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO.393 OF 2023 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. JYOTHI RAMESH W/O K. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, JYOTHI NILAYA, MARASANDRA ROAD, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HAROHALLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, NEAR VINAYAKA TALKIES, RAMANAGARA-562112. 2. MR. K. RAMESH S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, JYOTHI NILAYA, MARASANDRA ROAD, RANGANATHA EXTENSION, HAROHALLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, NEAR VINAYAKA TALKIES, RAMANAGARA-562112. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. USHA G.H., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6312 WP No. 393 of 2023 AND: SRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD., HEAD OFFICE AT LEVEL 3, EAST WING, WOCKHARDT TOWER, BANDRA KRULA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051 AND ALSO AT NO.221, ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600004 BRANCH OFFIC AT NO.194, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, CMH ROAD, 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY AND SRI, CHANDRASHEKAR S.N., ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ANNEXURE-A THE SUSPENSION ORDER TO PETITIONER VIDE CRL. MISC.NO.5/22 DATED 12.08.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMANAGARA AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6312 WP No. 393 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2022 passed in Crl.Mis.No.5/2022 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara, filed this petition. 2. This Court, vide order dated 30.01.2023, had granted an interim order, wherein the interim order was subject to the petitioners depositing 20% of the amount in due to the Bank within 6 weeks from the date of passing of the order in the following manner: i. 10% of the amount to be deposited within 3 weeks; ii. The remaining 10% to be deposited within 3 weeks thereafter; It was made clear that, any deviation in paying the aforesaid amount within the timeline as stipulated therein, even of the first instance, would entail vacation of the interim order and would also run the risk of dismissal of the petition itself. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that, the petitioners have not complied with the interim order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6312 WP No. 393 of 2023 dated 30.01.2023 and have not paid a single pai. Despite granting the interim order, the petitioner has not deposited the amount even after 3 years. 4. The impugned order under challenge is an appealable order. The petitioners, without exhausting the equal efficacious remedy, filed this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and Others1. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed reserving a liberty to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate forum, if so advised. 6. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA | List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510