Sri Lokesh Vs the Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Lokesh Vs the Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 08.09.2023 rejecting I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.784/2022 and the order dated 01.03.2024 dismissing M.A.No.90/2023 should be quashed / whether they warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

Court's answer

No illegality or irregularity was found in the impugned orders which needs interference by this Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the earlier litigation on the same property and that the petitioner/plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction, the trial Court rightly rejected I.A.No.1 filed in O.S.No.784/2022.

Key takeaways

The appellate court having re-appreciated these aspects rightly confirmed the trial Court's order rejecting I.A.No.1.ratio¶¶50
Declining interference, this Court declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it.ratio¶¶50
The trial Court shall make endeavours to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (oral order, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, 26.11.2025), W.P. No.17463 of 2024 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: Plaintiff Sri Lokesh sought quashing of (i) the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Mysuru rejecting his I.A.No.1 (temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC) in O.S.No.784/2022 — a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of suit schedule A and B properties — and (ii) the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysore dismissing his appeal M.A.No.90/2023. The Court noted that the same property had been the subject of earlier unsuccessful litigation by the petitioner's sister Smt.Jayamma (O.S.No.310/2004, dismissed; R.A.No.639/2010 filed by her daughter, dismissed; RSA.No.940/2011 before this Court, dismissed), whose decree had attained finality before the petitioner filed the fresh suit. Holding: the petitioner/plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case for temporary injunction; the trial Court rightly rejected I.A.No.1 and the appellate court rightly confirmed it; no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders warranted interference under Article 227. The writ petition was dismissed, with a direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits expeditiously.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49008 WP No. 17463 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 17463 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI LOKESH, S/O. SRI. ESWARIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.178, SRIRAMPURA, NEAR KANDAYA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 008.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. SHYMALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V R BALARAJ., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka

THE REVENUE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE SRECRETARY, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER, ALURU VENKATARAO ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, 'SRI MAHADEVASWARA BHAVANA', OPP. MINTO HOSPITAL, BENGALURU - 560 018.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE - 570 001.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49008 WP No. 17463 of 2024

HC-KAR

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 008.

THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 005.

SRI. MAHADEVAIAH, S/O. CHIKKAIDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/O. KANNEGOWDANA KOPPALU, KANNEGOWDANAKOPPAL MARULESHWARA TEMPLE TRUST, K. G. KOPPAL, MYSORE - 570 005.

SRI. K. R. RANGIAH, S/O. PACHI RANGIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. KANNEGOWDANA KOPPALU, KANNEGOWDANAKOPPALU MARULESHWARA TEMPLE TRUST, K. G. KOPPAL, MYSORE - 570 005.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR., ADVOCATE C/R7; SMT.REKHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R1 TO R6)

THIS WP IF FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.03.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSORE IN M.A.NO.90/2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AT MYSORE IN O.S.NO.784/2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B. CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION- IA NO.1 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

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

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49008 WP No. 17463 of 2024

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 08.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.784/2022 by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge at Mysuru and the order dated 01.03.2024 passed on M.A.No.90/2023 by the Court of V Additional Senior Civil Judge at JMFC-Mysore.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and learned counsel for respondent No.7.

Petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.784/2022 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at Mysore seeking the relief of permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction in respect of the suit schedule A and B properties. In the said suit, I.A.No.1 was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC on behalf of

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49008 WP No. 17463 of 2024

HC-KAR

the plaintiff and the said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objection. The Trial Court vide the order impugned dated 08.09.2023 had rejected

I.A.No.1 filed in O.S.No.784/2022 and the petitioner/plaintiff had unsuccessfully challenged the said order before the Court of V Additional Senior Civil Judge at JMFC-Mysore in M.A.No.90/2023 which was dismissed on 01.03.2024, assailing the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner is before the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in this petition submits that

the Courts below have erred in rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC on behalf of the plaintiff. The reasoning assigned by the courts below are not cogent.

Per contra , learned counsel for respondents have

argued in support of the order impugned.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49008 WP No. 17463 of 2024

HC-KAR

Perusal of the material on the record would to go show that in respect of the properties which are subject matter of O.S.No.784/2022, sister of the petitioner namely Smt.Jayamma had earlier filed O.S.No.310/2004 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed and as against the same daughter of Smt.Jayamma had filed R.A.No.639/2010, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, Smt.Jayamma had filed a regular second appeal before this court in RSA.No.940/2011, which was also dismissed. After the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.310/2004 had attained finality, the petitioner herein who is the brother of Smt.Jayamma has filed a fresh suit in respect of the property which was subject matter of the earlier suit in O.S.No.310/2004.

Appreciating this aspect of the matter, and also taking into consideration that petitioner/plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction, the trial Court has rejected I.A.No.1 filed in

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:49008 WP No. 17463 of 2024

HC-KAR

O.S.No.784/2022 and the appellate court having re-appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter has rightly confirmed the said order. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned which needs interference by this Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 227 of Constitution. Therefore, I decline to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The trial Court shall make endeavours to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits as expeditious as possible.

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

KVR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25