Disposed¶74

Sureshappa v. Raju

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2025WP/15230/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sureshappa v. Raju and others; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; WP No. 15230 of 2020 (GM-CPC); NC: 2025:KHC:28591; writ of certiorari; temporary injunction; Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC; M.A.No.10/2019 dated 29.11.2019; O.S.No.131/2018 permanent injunction suit; Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Shikaripura; Shivamogga/Shimoga; interim stay 21.12.2020; status-quo over suit schedule property till disposal of suit; disposed of 25 July 2025; Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; parties in O.S.No.131/2018 directed to maintain status-quo with regard to possession over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit; liberty to seek early disposal from the Trial Court; no orders as to costs. ¶74

Sureshappa Vs Raju — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue quashing the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shikaripura, in M.A.No.10/2019 (Annexure-H), which reversed the Trial Court's grant of temporary injunction in O.S.No.131/2018.

¶47

Court's answer

With the suit stalled by the pendency of the writ petition and an interim stay operating since 21.12.2020, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, the Court was of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if the parties are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to possession over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

Operative direction (clause ii of the ORDER): parties in O.S.No.131/2018 are to maintain status-quo with regard to possession over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

¶76

Key takeaways

Liberty granted to the parties to make a prayer to the Trial Court for early disposal of the suit, which the Trial Court may consider (clause iii of the ORDER).ratio¶78

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), 25.07.2025 — WP No. 15230 of 2020 (GM-CPC): petitioner Sureshappa sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.11.2019 in M.A.No.10/2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shikaripura (Annexure-H), which reversed the Trial Court's order allowing his application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in O.S.No.131/2018, a suit for permanent injunction. An interim stay had operated since 21.12.2020 and the suit proceedings were stalled. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the writ petition was disposed of: parties directed to maintain status-quo as regards possession of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit; liberty granted to seek early disposal from the Trial Court; no orders as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:28591 WP No. 15230 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 15230 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1. SURESHAPPA

¶11

S/O DHARMEGOWDA @ BHARMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,

¶12

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶13

R/O KAGINELLI VILLAGE, SANNAKENCHAPLER HOUSE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427, DIST-SHIMOGA.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BYSRI. KAMADOLLI MANJULADEVI RAMAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

RAJU

¶18

S/O MURIGEPPA AGE 42 YEARS,

¶19

R/O KAGINELLI VILLAGE, SANNAKENCHAPLER HOUSE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427 DIST-SHIVAMOGGA.

¶20

THOPESHA ADOPTED FATHER THOPANNA AGE 41 YEARS, R/O KAGINELLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28591 WP No. 15230 of 2020

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

DIST-SHIVAMOGGA.

¶24

3 HANUMAGOWDAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

¶25

3(a) YOGESH S/O. HANUMAGOWD AGE: 48 YEARS OCC: Agriculture R/O KAGINELLI VILLAGE, SANNAKENCHAPLER HOUSE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577427, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶26

3(b) VEERANAGOWDA S/O HANUMAGOWDAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KAGINELLI VILLAGE, SANNAKENCHAPLER HOUSE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577427 DIST: SHIMOGA.

¶27

4. VASANTHAPPA

¶28

S/O THAMMANNAPPA AGE 64 YEARS R/O KAGINALLI VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427 DIST-SHIVAMOGGA.

¶29

5. THIPPESHI

¶30

S/O BASAVANAGOWDAPPA AGE 42 YEARS, R/O KAGINALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427, DIST-SHIVAMOGGA.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28591 WP No. 15230 of 2020

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

6. SMT MALLAMMA

¶34

SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 6(A) RUDRAGOWDAPPA S/O SHANTHAVEERAPPA, AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KAGINELLI VILLAGE, SANNAKENCHAPLER HOUSE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577427 DISTRICT: SHIMOGA.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R3 (A & B), R4, R5 AND R6., SRI.SHOBITH N.SHETTY, ADV FOR R7 AND R9 (P/H) ADVOCATE)

¶37

THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIKARIPURA IN MA NO.10/2019 DTD 29.11.2019 VIDE ANNX-H AND ETC.

¶38

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

This petition is filed seeking following relief:

¶42

"Wherefore the petitioner most respectfully prays this

¶43

Hon'ble Court to;

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:28591 WP No. 15230 of 2020

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at: Shikaripura in M.A.No.10/2019 dtd., 29/11/2019 vide Annexure H.

¶48

b) Issue any other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case and call for the records of the courts below, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶49

Heard Smt. Kamadolli Manjuladevi Ramappa. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against respondents along with the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed which came to be allowed by appreciating the pleading and material on record. However, the Appellate Court in the impugned order reversed the said order by recording an incorrect finding.

¶50

It is submitted that the impugned order of the Appellate Court is stayed by this Court in this writ petition and the suit is also not proceeded with. Hence, he seeks to consider the grant of status-quo by directing the Trial

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:28591 WP No. 15230 of 2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Court to dispose of the suit on merits. Hence, he seeks to

¶55

allow the petition.

¶56

Per contra Sri. S. V. Prakash, learned counsel

¶57

appearing for the respondents-defendants supports the order of the Appellate Court and submits that the Appellate Court has passed a well reasoned order noting the errors committed by the Trial Court in its order of temporary injunction, which is required to be sustained. In alternate he submits that if the parties are directed to maintain status-quo and direction is issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in the time bound manner, the ends of justice would be met. Hence, he seeks to pass an appropriate order.

¶58

I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶59

The pleading and material on record indicate

¶60

that the petitioner filed O.S.No.131/2018 for relief of

¶61

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28591 WP No. 15230 of 2020

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

permanent injunction against the respondents. The petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, which came to be allowed on 19.09.2019. The said order was appealed by the respondents in M.A.No.10/2019. The Appellate Court

¶64

reversed the order of the Trial Court and rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, which was assailed in this petition.

¶65

The parties have raised various contentions in

¶66

this petition and the writ petition is pending from 2020. This Court on 21.12.2020, granted an interim order of stay on the impugned order dated 29.11.2019 passed in M.A.No.10/2019. Furthermore, it is unanimously agreed that there may be direction to the Trial court to dispose of the suit, as the suit proceedings are stalled due to the pendency of this writ petition. Taking note of the said submission and without expressing any opinion on the merits on the rival contentions urged in the petition, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:28591 WP No. 15230 of 2020

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

met if the parties are directed to maintain status-quo with

¶71

regard to possession over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

¶72