- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1897 WP No. 24017 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24017 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI.GURUVA S/O BOMMAIAH AGED 50 YEARS R/AT MALEDODDI VILLAGE GEGECHANAKERE POST CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT. &PETITIONER (BY SRI.M. PRAKASHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560001. Digitally signed by SARITHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1897 WP No. 24017 of 2025 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 040. 3. SMT PRAVEEN BEE W/O IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT 895 ARUNDATHI NAGAR SLUM NEAR ESHWAR TEMPLE GANGAONDANAHALLI NAYANDAHALLI BENGALURU 560039. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B. RAVINDRANATH., AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PROTECT THE POSSESSION AND INTEREST OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER WHERE THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST MRS.PARVEEN BEE WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1897 WP No. 24017 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts that he is in possession of a property measuring 10 feet x 15 feet in No.894, Chandra Layout, Gangondanahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and that the Station House Officer, the jurisdictional Police Station must take action to protect his possession of the property. Sri M Prakasha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the Judgment and decree dated 02.04.2025 in O.S. No.25833/2015 on the file of the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayohall, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court'] filed by the third respondent to assert that the third respondent's suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner is dismissed and therefore the second respondent must intervene. 2. The question whether this Court must indeed issue directions to the second respondent is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1897 WP No. 24017 of 2025 examined in the light of certain conclusions by the civil Court in OS No. 25833/2015 upon hearing Sri B Ravindranath, a learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the first and second respondents. The civil Court has opined that the petitioner [the third defendant in the suit] has not produced documents while observing that the second respondent [the plaintiff in the suit] has also not produced documents. "On the other hand, the Defendant No.3 also produced copy of Power of Attorney holder dtd: 31.8.2009 said to have been executed by Plaintiff herein in favour of Prakash in respect of House No.894, copy of Affidavit of Prakash in favour of 3rd Defendant which is accompanied by GPA dtd: 22.8.2012 by the Defendant No.3. Admittedly, all these documents are xerox documents, therefore, on the basis of these documents, this Court cannot hold that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Suit Property. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to prove her lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property and as well as alleged obstruction - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1897 WP No. 24017 of 2025 caused to her in enjoyment of the Suit Property by the Defendants." 3. The civil Court, on examining the third respondent's claim for permanent injunction against the petitioner, has dismissed the suit. The civil Court's finding in this regard reads as under: "27&&. Since the Plaintiff failed to establish her possession over the Suit Schedule Property and the alleged interference by the Defendants by producing cogent, convincing and acceptable evidence before this Court, the Plaintiff is not entitle for any relief, much less the reliefs claimed in the above suit. Hence, the question of granting the relief of perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff does not arise." Neither the petitioner nor the second respondent have placed any documents on record to invite civil Court's definite opinion in their favour. 4. This Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner intends to protect the possession - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1897 WP No. 24017 of 2025 of the subject property, especially after the civil Court's afore order on an interim application in such suit, he must necessarily protect his interest by instituting a proper suit and there is no reason for issuing any direction to the second respondent. The petition therefore stands disposed of subject to all just exceptions in law. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-