Smt. Pillamma v. Shri Muniyappa

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2025WP/17313/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Article 227 writ petition; GM-CPC; ex parte ad-interim temporary injunction refused; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Section 28 Karnataka Civil Courts Act; Section 5 Limitation Act; Misc.No.5/2025 recall of compromise disposal; O.S.No.920/2020; Vacation Court Bangalore Rural District; emergent notice RPAD returnable 09.06.2025; alternative remedy appeal before First Appellate Court; application pending before concerned Court; petition disposed remedies left open; Justice M. Nagaprasanna; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; I.A.No.III injunction application.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to interfere with the Vacation Court's order issuing notice, more so because the application (I.A.No.III) is still pending consideration before the concerned Court. ¶¶89

Smt. Pillamma Vs Shri Muniyappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶91

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 should be allowed by quashing the Vacation Court's order dated 16.05.2025 refusing ex parte ad-interim temporary injunction on I.A.No.III in Misc.No.5/2025, and granting the interim injunction sought. +1 more

¶¶62

Court's answer

The Court declined to interfere with the Vacation Court's order issuing notice, more so because the application (I.A.No.III) is still pending consideration before the concerned Court.

¶¶89

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the order refusing the grant of injunction before the First Appellate Court.

¶¶84

Key takeaways

The impugned order only directs the issuance of notice to the respondents, returnable by 09.06.2025.obiter¶¶84
Leaving open the remedy available to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed.ratio¶¶91

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru — Writ Petition No. 17313 of 2025 (GM-CPC), decided 04.07.2025 by M. Nagaprasanna, J. The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.920/2020 (disposed on a compromise between the parties on 11.01.2024), filed Misc.No.5/2025 seeking recall of the compromise disposal, along with I.A.No.III under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for temporary injunction. By order dated 16.05.2025, the Vacation Court, Bangalore Rural District — after allowing I.A.No.I under Sec. 28 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act on urgency — declined an ex parte ad-interim injunction, holding that no prima facie case was made out to dispense with prior notice, and issued emergent notice of I.A.No.III and the main petition through court and RPAD, returnable by 09.06.2025. On a writ under Article 227 seeking quashing of that order and grant of the injunction, the High Court declined to interfere: the application remains pending consideration before the concerned Court, and the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against refusal of injunction before the First Appellate Court. Petition disposed, leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24173 WP No. 17313 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17313 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PILLAMMA D/O. MUNIYAPPA @ YELLAPPA W/O. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT-THOGARIGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 205.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed 1. SHRI MUNIYAPPA by NAGAVENI S/O. MUNIYAPPA @ YELLAPPA Location: High AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. Court of Karnataka

¶14

SHRI MUNIANJANAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶15

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA D/O MUNIYAPPA

¶16

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶17

SHRI PAPANNA

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:24173 WP No. 17313 of 2025

HC-KAR

S/O MUNIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

SMT.THIMMAMBIKA W/O MUNIANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶24

SHRI RAMAMURTHY S/O MUNIANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶25

KUM.ARUNA D/O MUNIANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶26

KUM.CHAITHRA D/O MUNIANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶27

SMT.NANDINI W/O PAPANNA

¶28

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶29

SHRI HUCHAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA @ YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.

¶30

SMT.AKKAYYAMMA W/O HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶31

SHRI THIMMARAYAPPA S/O HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:24173 WP No. 17313 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

SMT.RAMADEVI W/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶36

SHRI GANGAPPA S/O HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶37

SMT.LAKSHMIDEVI W/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶38

SMT.MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶39

SHRI MARE GOWDA S/O HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶40

SMT.SAVITHA W/O MARE GOWDA

¶41

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶42

SMT.LAKSHMI D/O HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶43

THE RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 19 ARE

¶44

R/AT NO.123/1 MYLAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE HESERGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 089.

¶45

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24173 WP No. 17313 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

SRI IMAM SAHEB D., S/O. D. ALI SAHEB AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.1/1A, DODDABALLAPURA MAIN ROAD SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶48

MASTER RANJAN T., S/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶49

MASTER ARAVIND G., S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.21 AND 22 ARE R/AT: NO. 123/1, MYLAPPANHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 089.

¶50

SMT. HUCHAMMA D/O. MUNIYAPPA @ YELLAPPA W/O. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT-CHOODASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099.

¶51

…RESPONDENTS

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDERS DATED 16.05.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:24173 WP No. 17313 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

VACATION COURT BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE REFUSING TO GRANT EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ON I.A NO.3 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN MISC.NO.5/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE -A AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER AS PRAYED FOR IN IA.NO.3 FILED IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.

¶57

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶58

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶59

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶60

ORAL ORDER

¶61

Heard Sri.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶62

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 16.05.2025 by which the concerned Court refuses to grant an ex parte ad interim order of injunction answering I.A.No.III filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and seeks the injunction that is sought for. The petitioner is the

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:24173 WP No. 17313 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

plaintiff, institutes a suit in O.S.No.920/2020. The suit comes to

¶67

be disposed on a compromise entered into between the parties on 11.01.2024. The petitioner then files a Miscellaneous Application in Misc.No.5/2025 seeking recall of the disposal of

¶68

the suit on the compromise and further files an application seeking a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The concerned Court passes the following order:

¶69

"The counsel for the Petitioner has filed I.A.No.I under Sec. 28 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act.

¶70

Heard counsel for the Petitioner and perused the records and I am satisfied regarding the urgency in filing the suit before the Vacation Court.

¶71

Therefore, I.A.No.I filed by the Petitioner under Sec. 28 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act is allowed.

¶72

Heard the counsel for the Petitioner in respect of I.A.No.III filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec.151 of the CPC seeking to restrain the Respondents No.1 to 22, from alienating or encumbering the schedule properties in any manner pending disposal of the petition.

¶73

I have perused the petitioner averments and the documents produced along with the petition.

¶74

However, at this stage, considering the nature of the relief sought in the petition and also considering the fact that there is also an I.A.No.ll filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, I am of the opinion that, before considering the I.A.No.III and before passing exparte order on I.A.No.III, it is just and proper to give an opportunity to the Respondents. Therefore, at this stage, the Petitioner has not made out prima-facie case to

¶75

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24173 WP No. 17313 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

dispense with prior notice of IA No.Ill to the Respondents.

¶78

Hence, Issue emergent notice of I.A.No.III and of main petition to the Respondents through court as well as through RPAD, as prayed for r/by 09.06.2025.

¶79

List the matter before Jurisdictional court on 09.06.2025.

¶80

Office is directed to transmit records to the jurisdictional court, so as to reach it by 09.06.2025.

¶81

Sd/16/5/25 Vacation Judge."

¶82

The concerned Court declines to grant temporary injunction as was sought for. It is declining of the temporary injunction and issuance of notice only in Misc. No.5/2025, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

¶83

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶84

seek to urge the grounds that the petitioner has projected in I.A.No.III seeking temporary injunction. The order quoted herein above only directs the issuance of notice to the respondents, returnable by 09.06.2025. The petition is preferred on 11.06.2025 and the matter has come up today on 04.07.2025. The respondents would be represented by now. Even otherwise, the petitioner has a remedy on filing an appeal against the said order refusing the grant of an injunction before the First Appellate Court.

¶85

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:24173 WP No. 17313 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88