- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2722 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 2725 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 2722/2026 BETWEEN: SRI KURIEN VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O MR. K. O. VARGHESE, R/AT NO.145, JAL VAYU VIHAR, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUSNEL FOR SRI. SHAIK ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SATHISH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O VENKATRAMANAPPA, NO.345, BALU NIVAS, DODDAGUBBI, BODARAHALI VILLAGE, DODDAGUBBI POST, BENGALURU – 560 077 2. SRI. P. R. RAJESH S/O P. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, 5TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 3. SRI. P. RAMACHANDRA S/O P. VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, 5TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003 4. SRI. V. V. RAMAMURTHY, S/O V. V. VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A # 56, 3RD CROSS, CHOWDESHAWARI NILAYA, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064. 5. SRI. B. GOVINDAPPA @ GOVINDARAJU S/O BALAGURAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A # 236, 17TH CROSS, WARD NO. 2, KONDAPPA LAYOUT, YELEHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064. 6. SRI. ABU BAKAR SIDDIK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O ABBAS KHAN, R/AT NO.43/1B, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAIL ROAD, VENKATESHNAGAR, SHIVAMOGA DIST. – 577 201. 7. MOHAMMED KHAN DURANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED SHADIK, 8. BEGUM SULTANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O MOHAMMED KHAN DURANI RESPONDENT NO.7 AND 8 ARE R/A NO.306, 4TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, KANVA LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYSHAM JAYASIMHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR CAV / R6) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN I.A. NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC IN M.A. NO.7/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TO ALLOW THE I.A NO. 3 TO AMEND THE PLAINT AND INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL PLEADINGS. IN WP No. 2725/2026 BETWEEN: SRI KURIEN VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O MR. K. O. VARGHESE, R/AT NO.145, KALYAN NAGAR POST, JAL VAYU VIHAR, BENGALURU – 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHAIK ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SATHISH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O VENKATRAMANAPPA, NO.345, BALU NIVAS, DODDAGUBBI, BODARAHALI VILLAGE, DODDAGUBBI POST, BENGALURU – 560 077 2. SRI. P. R. RAJESH S/O P. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, 5TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003 3. SRI. P. RAMACHANDRA S/O P. VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, 5TH MAIN ROAD, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003 4. SRI. V. V. RAMAMURTHY, S/O V. V. VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A # 56, 3RD CROSS, CHOWDESHAWARI NILAYA, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064. 5. SRI. B. GOVINDAPPA @ GOVINDARAJU S/O BALAGURAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A # 236, 17TH CROSS, WARD NO. 2, KONDAPPA LAYOUT, YELEHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064. 6. SRI. ABU BAKAR SIDDIK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O ABBAS KHAN, R/AT NO.43/1B, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAIL ROAD, VENKATESHNAGAR, SHIVAMOGA DIST – 577 201. 7. MOHAMMED KHAN DURANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED SHADIK, 8. BEGUM SULTANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O MOHAMMED KHAN DURANI RESPONDENT NO.7 AND 8 ARE R/A NO.306, 4TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, KANVA LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYSHAM JAYASIMHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR CAV / R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2026 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED IN IA NO. 3 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 MA 6/2026 CPC IN MA NO. 8/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TO ALLOW THE IA NO. 3 TO AMEND THE PLAINT AND INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL PLEADINGS. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER Both these petitions by the petitioner in M.A.No.7/2026 and M.A.No.8/2026 is directed against the impugned order dated 22.01.2026, whereby the application I.A.No.3 in both the appeals filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal were rejected by the First Appellate Court. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court in W.P.No.21/2026 c/w W.P.No.16/2026 passed the following order: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 “W.P.No.16/2026 is directed against the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed in M.A.No.7/2025 by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (1st appellate court). W.P.No.21/2026 is filed by the very same petitioner against the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed on the application filed by the 6th respondent – 6th defendant under Section 151 CPC in O.S.No.551/2025 on the file of I Addl.Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (Trial court). 2. Since the common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in these petitions, the same are taken up together for consideration. 3. For the order proposed and in view of the memo filed by the learned counsel for petitioner, notice to respondents 1 to 5 and 7 to 8 is dispensed with. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner – plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.551/2025 against the respondents – defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the plaint schedule property. In the said suit, apart from filing the written statement and contesting the suit, 6th respondent – 6th defendant not only filed the written statement but also put forth his counter claim schedule property for permanent injunction and other reliefs against the plaintiff. In the said suit, the petitioner – plaintiff filed applications for temporary injunction in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC against the 6th respondent – 6th - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 defendant, who in turn filed an application I.A.No.5 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC for temporary injunction against the plaintiff. All the three applications were heard together and culminated in an order dated 16.12.2025, whereby the trial court rejected I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed by the petitioner – plaintiff and allowed the application I.A.No.5 filed by the 6th respondent – 6th defendant. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial court, the petitioner – plaintiff filed appeals in M.A.No.7/2025 and M.A.No.8/2025, in which, the 1st appellate court declined to pass any interim order and directed issuance of notice to 6th respondent – 6th defendant. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed in M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025 declining to grant any interim order in favour of the petitioner, he has preferred W.P.No.16/2026. 5. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the trial court, the 6th respondent – 6th defendant filed an application seeking police protection to enforce and implement the order passed in his favour. By the impugned order dated 03.01.2026, the trial court allowed the said application and directed the jurisdictional police to give police protection in favour of 6th respondent – 6th defendant against the petitioner, who has preferred connected W.P.No.21/2026. 6. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 6th respondent and perused the material on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 7. The material on record discloses that the aforesaid appeals in M.A.No.7/2025 and M.A.No.8/2025 were preferred before the vacation court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and the same would necessarily have to be transferred and posted before the 1st appellate court which is the court of competent jurisdiction i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 6th respondent jointly submit that since both the appeals filed by the petitioner are pending before the 1st appellate court, the present petitions may be disposed of directing the 1st appellate court to dispose of the appeals on merits and in accordance with law within a stipulated timeframe by keeping open all contentions and the parties may be directed to maintain status quo in all respects in relation to the plaint schedule property as well as the counter claim schedule property till disposal of the appeals. The said submissions are placed on record. 9. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had filed appeals in M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025 prior to the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the trial court granting police protection, the said order dated 03.01.2026 was passed without giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the same having been passed on the re- opening date after winter vacation, the said order may be set aside and the trial court may be directed to reconsider the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 said application after disposal of the appeals in M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that the 6th respondent had filed the said application on 18.12.2025 and despite granting sufficient opportunity, the petitioner did not file objections to the said application for police protection and as such, the order impugned in W.P.No.21/2026 dated 03.01.2026 does not warrant interference by this Court in the said writ petition. 11. A perusal of the material on record as well as the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the joint submission made by both sides with regard to disposal of the appeals within a stipulated timeframe, directing both parties to maintain status quo in relation to the suit schedule property is concerned, since the appeals are still pending adjudication before the 1st appellate court as on today, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of W.P.No.16/2026 by directing both parties viz., petitioner and 6th respondent to appear before the 1st appellate court on 12.01.2026 and directing the 1st appellate court to dispose of the appeals by issuing certain directions in this regard. 12. Insofar as W.P.No.21/2026 is concerned, the order sheet maintained by the trial court will clearly indicate that on 16.12.2025, the trial court rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner – plaintiff and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the 6th respondent – 6th defendant. Immediately, thereafter, the 6th respondent – 6th defendant filed an application on 18.12.2025 within two days thereafter seeking police protection and the matter was adjourned to 19.12.2025 and thereafter to the re-opening day i.e., 03.01.2026, on which date, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order granting police protection by noticing that the petitioner – plaintiff had not filed objections to the said application. In this context, it is relevant to state that non-grant of sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and contest the application for police protection, particularly when the petitioner had already filed the aforesaid appeals in M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025, is clearly violative of principles of natural justice, warranting interference by this Court in the said petition by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration of the application for police protection afresh after disposal of M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025 in accordance with law. 13. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) W.P.No.16/2026 is hereby disposed of. (ii) Petitioner and 6th respondent are directed to appear before the jurisdictional / designated 1st appellate court on 12.01.2026 without awaiting further notice from the 1st appellate court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 (iii) The 1st appellate court shall hear both sides and dispose of the appeals on merits within a period of four weeks from 12.01.2026. (iv) W.P.No.21/2026 is hereby allowed. (v) The impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the trial court in O.S.No.551/2025 directing grant of police protection is hereby set aside. (vi) The matter is remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh the application for police protection filed by the 6th respondent – 6th defendant after disposal of M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025 as stated supra. (vii) It is further directed that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo in all respects as on today in relation to the suit schedule property and counter claim schedule property till disposal of M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025. (viii) It is further directed that the 1st appellate court shall dispose of M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025 without being influenced by the findings and observations, if any, recorded in the present order. (ix) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 4. Subsequent to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed the instant applications seeking amendment of the grounds in the memorandum of appeal in M.A.No.7/2026 and M.A.No.8/2026 by seeking to incorporate paragraph Nos.6A to 6F after paragraph No.6 and before paragraph No.7 of the grounds of the facts and grounds of the Memorandum of Appeals. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to oversight and inadvertence and on account of typographical error, instead of averring that the request for amendment is in relation to the grounds of appeal, petitioner has stated in the amendment application and affidavit that he was seeking amendment of the plaint, as a result of which, the First Appellate Court was persuaded to dismiss the applications and since the petitioner was not in a position to appear before the First Appellate Court due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the First Appellate Court dismissed the applications by passing the impugned order which deserved to be set aside. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that apart from the aforesaid amendment applications, I.A.No.3 filed both in M.A.No.7/2026 and M.A.No.8/2026, the petitioner has also filed identical applications seeking amendment of the plaint also in the pending suit and as such, the First Appellate Court was fully justified in noting that the petitioner was not complying with the directions issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the appeals and the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 7. 7. A perusal of the applications I.A.No.3 for amendment will indicate that the petitioner has used the word “plaint” instead of the words “memorandum of appeal”. However, having regard to the specific submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and due to oversight and inadvertence, the petitioner had mistakenly/erroneously used the word “plaint” instead of “Memorandum of Appeal”, I am of the view that if the petitioner is permitted to amend only the “Memorandum of Appeal” and not the “plaint”, interest of justice would be met and the First - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 Appellate Court is to be directed to dispose of the appeal on merits And in accordance with law. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petition may be disposed of by issuing certain directions. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) Both impugned orders dated 22.01.2026 on I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner-appellant is allowed by clarifying that the proposed amendment would relate to amendment of the facts and grounds of the Memorandum of Appeal and the same shall not be construed or treated as permitting the petitioner/appellant to amend the plaint in O.S.No.551/2025 pending before the trial Court. iii) The petitioner is directed to carry out amendment and file amended appeal memorandum on 07.02.2026 without seeking any adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever. iv) Immediately upon the petitioner-appellant filing amended memorandum of appeal on 07.02.2026 as stated supra, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5429 WP No. 2722 of 2026 C/W WP No. 2725 of 2026 the First Appellate Court shall proceed further and shall hear both sides and dispose of both the appeals on merits on or before 16.02.2026. v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32