- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1151 WP No. 100247 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100247 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. NASEERUDDIN S/O. RAJASAB SYED, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SUNKASAL VILLAGE, TQ. ANKOLA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHCHIDANAND BABAJI PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SAIRABANU W/O. DAVUL SAB, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 223/A, SUNKASAL VILLAGE, TQ. ANKOLA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA, PIN- 2. SMT. BEBI C.R., AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KANAKAPUR MAIN ROAD, UDIPALYA SOUTH BANGALORE, TQ. AND DIST. BANGALORE, PIN-560 082. 3. SRI. RAJASAB S/O. HAADISAB SYED, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SUNKASAL VILLAGE, TQ. ANKOLA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA- Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1151 WP No. 100247 of 2026 4. SRI. VINAYA S/O. MANJUNATH BHAT, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SUNKASAL VILLAGE, TQ. ANKOLA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA- 5. SMT. VEENA W/O. VINAY BHAT, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SUNKASAL VILLAGE, TQ. ANKOLA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA- …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.02/2025 ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-E, AND/OR; II. GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1151 WP No. 100247 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed questioning the order on I.A.No.1 passed in M.A.No.2/2025 dated 19.12.2025 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ankola (for short ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The respondent herein is the plaintiff and the petitioner herein is the defendant No.5 in O.S.No.120/2025 filed for partition, declaration and for injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.4 seeking injunction restraining the petitioner herein from making construction. The said application came to be dismissed by order dated 08.12.2025. While dismissing the said application, the Trial Court has observed that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case but has failed to show other two elements i.e., balance of convenience and irreparable loss and dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed M.A.No.2/2025 before the Appellate Court and in the said appeal, another interlocutory application was filed seeking injunction. The said application came to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1151 WP No. 100247 of 2026 allowed on 19.12.2025 by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court had observed that the appellant, in her application, is disputing about item No.2 of the suit schedule property and she is never disputing about the item No.3 to 7 of the properties. She averred that item No.3 and 4 properties are standing in the name of the appellant and respondent No.1 and item No.5 to 7 properties are standing in the name of defendant No.2, who got changed the Khata in respect of item No.5. Whether the plaintiff is having half share in the schedule properties or not, would be decided after full-fledged trial. Moreover, in the appeal, respondent No.5 contended that already the plaintiff is claiming the relief of declaration and partition and also seeking the relief of mandatory injunction. The respondent No.5 is constructing a house in 1 guntas of land. As per the photographs produced by the respondent No.5, it is noticed that the respondent No.5 hurried to complete the construction work by seeing the situation of the civil vacation of the Court. The attitude of the respondent No.5 shows that he is having intention to complete the construction work within the civil vacation by using the mode and policy implements. Hence, the Court felt that it is all the more necessary to pass an order of injunction restraining the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1151 WP No. 100247 of 2026 defendant No.5 from making further construction. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. When this matter came up before the Court for preliminary hearing, this Court has passed an order that the petitioner shall file an affidavit undertaking before this Court that in the event he is unsuccessful in the suit, he will not claim any equity. An affidavit is filed before this Court stating that in the event the plaintiff is successful in the lis pending before the Trial Court, the petitioner/defendant No.5 undertakes that he will not claim any equity in respect of item No.2 of the property. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has objected to the same and submitted that he should have stated that he is making the construction and in respect of the said construction, he will not claim any equity. The construction is in respect of 01 guntas of land whereas the extent of the suit schedule property is 05 guntas. 6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1151 WP No. 100247 of 2026 7. In the suit for partition, declaration and injunction, the defendant No.5 is making construction and photographs are placed before the Court. In this kind of matters, where the construction is involved, if the construction is stopped and after the suit is disposed, if the party has to make the construction, in view of the escalation of prices, it would have an effect on the him. In those circumstances, this Court felt it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file an undertaking affidavit that he will not claim equities in the event if he is unsuccessful and affidavit is also filed. This Court has already considered the objections raised by the defendant. In the light of this undertaking, as far as I.A.No.4 is concerned, no further adjudication is required even by the Appellate Court. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel that so far as I.A.No.1 is concerned, he will withdraw the same. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The order on I.A.No.1 passed in M.A.No.2/2025 passed by the Appellate Court is set aside in the light of the undertaking filed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1151 WP No. 100247 of 2026 petitioner herein before this Court and the petitioner shall not claim equity in respect of the construction work made by him in item No.2 of the property in the event the plaintiff succeeds in the suit. (ii) In the light of this order, nothing survives for consideration in M.A.No2/2025 as far as I.A.No.4 is concerned, and same is also disposed off. (iii) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. (iv) All I.As., in this writ petition stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30