- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5929 WP No. 18534 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18534 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI S.M.RAMESH S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/OF NITTUR VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 126 2. SRI. LOKESH. S/O REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GOBBI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTINCT- 572 126 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANU SHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHYATH, TUMKURU, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 101 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHYATH, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 126 3. THE PANCHYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NITTUR GRAMAPANCHYATH, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTIRCT-572 126 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5929 WP No. 18534 of 2025 4. SRI. N.S. JAYAPRAKASH S/O SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/OF NITTUR VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKURU, DISTRICT-572 126 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.J.N.NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.K.R.SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-J, J-1 AND J-2 DATED: 30.05.2025 AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Sri.J.N.Naveen., learned counsel is directed to accept for respondent No.1 in WP No.15154/2025. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a. Issues a writ of mandamus to consider the representation given by the petitioners vide Annexure-J, J-1 and J-2 dated 30.05.2025 and pass appropriate orders. b. Pass any other Writ, Order, direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5929 WP No. 18534 of 2025 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the representation submitted by the petitioners at Annexure-J, J-1 and J-2 to implement the orders passed by respondent No.3-the Panchayat Development Officer dated 17.03.2025 at Annexure- H has not been considered. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3 submits that respondent No.4 having filed a suit though the relief which had been sought for had not been granted. An appeal in MA No.2 of 2024 had been filed, the said Misc., Appeal has been allowed on 07.02.2024 wherein the panchayat is restrained from causing interference to the plaintiff in the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. It is on that grounds, he submits that the respondents were unable to take any action. 5. On enquiry with learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 as to whether an application in Order 7 of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5929 WP No. 18534 of 2025 Rule 11 of the CPC had been filed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court will not have any jurisdiction to restrain the respondent-panchayat from taking action under the applicable law which it is already done on 17.03.2025, he submits that no such application had been filed. 6. It is rather strange that the panchayat has not filed even such an application, when ex-facie the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to deal with an issue as regard discharge of the statutory duties cast on it. 7. It if at all, respondent No.4 had been aggrieved by the only remedy was to file writ petition before this Court challenging any action taken by the panchayat and not file a Civil suit. 8. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that an application under order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC would be filed in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5929 WP No. 18534 of 2025 the pending suit bring to the notice of the trial Court the above observation. 9. In the event of the plaint being rejected necessary action would be taken in pursuance of the order already passed on 17.03.2025 at Annexure-H, his submission is placed on record. 10. Since there is already an order of injunction in MA No.2 of 2024, a mandamus cannot be issued, depending on the outcome of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to be filed in OS No.582 of 2022 which application to be submitted would be filed within two weeks from today. The petition stands disposed of. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21