- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1006 WP No. 100611 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100611 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. C.K. ASHOK S/O. KARUNAKARAN, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MAINALLI VILLAGE, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN-581349. 2. SHARIFSAB S/O. MARDANSAB KATTI, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAINALLI VILLAGE, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN-581349. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUJEET S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: M.V. VARGES S/O. MULLASERI VARGES, AGE. 81 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAINALLI VILLAGE, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN-581349. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 08/01/2026 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, MUNDGOD ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 2A R/W SECTION 151 OF C.P.C IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF O.S. NO.5/2025, PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-L CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1006 WP No. 100611 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders on an interlocutory application seeking police protection passed in O.S.No.5/2025 dated 08.01.2026 by the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Mundgod, the defendants in the suit are before this Court. 2. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff, had filed a suit for declaration and injunction. In the suit, he filed an application seeking interim injunction and the Trial Court by order dated 29.03.2025 had granted injunction. Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been filed seeking police protection. By order impugned, the Court had allowed the application and directed the police to provide police aid whenever the plaintiff seeks by pointing out that defendant and their men are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendants submits that against the order of injunction they - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1006 WP No. 100611 of 2026 have filed an appeal before the Appellate Court and the same is pending consideration. Recently, they have argued the matter and now it is posted for the reply of the respondent/plaintiff. According to the petitioners, granting of injunction itself is bad and the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction as he is not in possession of the property. Further, the Court, without considering all these aspects had granted injunction. He relied on an order passed in W.P.No.51712/2019 dated 07.07.2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and submits that unless and until the injunction attains finality the Court while granting the police protection has to consider the said aspect. It is submitted that the police protection ought not to have been granted and this Court may pass order observing that order granted for police protection is subject to the final orders to be passed in the appeal pending before the Appellate Court. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the material on record. 5. The undisputed facts in this case are an order of injunction was passed on 29.03.2025. Against that, a miscellaneous appeal is filed by the defendants before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1006 WP No. 100611 of 2026 Appellate Court, which is pending consideration. Admittedly, the petitioners/defendants have no interim order and the injunction that was granted in favour of the plaintiff by the Trial Court is in force and it is staring at the petitioners. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the aspect whether the granting of injunction is right or wrong and what is the illegality committed by the Trial Court. This has to be decided by the Court where the appeal is pending. When the injunction granted by the Court is in force, which is not interfered by the Appellate Court, the respondent is always at a liberty to move an application seeking enforcement of the said order. Just because the appeal is pending, that itself cannot be a ground for the Court to reject the application filed by the plaintiff. Unless and until the injunction order is interfered with, the Court is always at liberty to grant police protection. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court had rightly granted police protection considering the fact that the injunction granted by the Court is in force. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order and this Court is passing the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1006 WP No. 100611 of 2026 ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. (ii) However, as the appeal is pending from the last one year, the Appellate Court is directed to dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. (iii) All I.As., in this writ petition stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23