T. Mohammed Arshad v. Mr. Dawood Shariff @Mr. Riyaz

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2025WP/25488/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition; writ of certiorari against refusal of ex parte interim injunction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC application; emergent notice; O.S.No.5912/2025; I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.2); interim restraint qua 'A' schedule property continued for four weeks; trial Court directed to dispose injunction application within four weeks; counsel's undertaking to enter appearance; writ petition disposed (GM-CPC).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; interim order (restraint qua 'A' schedule property) continued for four weeks; trial Court directed to hear parties and dispose IA No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC within an outer limit of four weeks; undertaking of counsel for defendants to enter appearance placed on record. ¶¶52

T. Mohammed Arshad Vs Mr. Dawood Shariff @Mr. Riyaz — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 19.08.2025 passed on IA No.1 in O.S.No.5912/2025 (by which the trial Court issued only emergent notice and declined the ex parte injunction sought under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) should be quashed by writ of certiorari under Article 227.

¶¶32

Court's answer

The Writ Petition is disposed (not decided by quashing or dismissing the impugned order).

¶¶52

Ratio / Principle

The interim order subsisting (restraint qua 'A' schedule property) is continued for a period of four weeks.

¶¶53

Key takeaways

The concerned Court (trial Court) is directed to hear the parties and dispose the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC within an outer limit of four weeks, if not earlier, in accordance with law.ratio¶¶54
The undertaking of learned counsel Sri.P.N.Rajeswara to enter appearance for the defendant in the suit is placed on record.ratio¶¶48-¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M. Nagaprasanna, J.), Writ Petition No. 25488 of 2025 (GM-CPC), decided 03.09.2025: The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.5912/2025 before the I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.2), filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari to quash the order dated 19.08.2025 passed on IA No.1, by which the trial Court had issued only emergent notice and had not granted the ex parte injunction sought under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. With the respondents now represented and both learned counsel submitting in unison that the trial Court be directed to dispose the pending application, the Court disposed of the writ petition, continued the subsisting interim restraint in respect of 'A' schedule property for four weeks, and directed the trial Court to hear the parties and dispose the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC within an outer limit of four weeks, if not earlier, in accordance with law; the undertaking of counsel for the defendants to enter appearance was placed on record.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34591 WP No. 25488 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 25488 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T. MOHAMMED ARSHAD, S/O. MR. T. ZAMRUD, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, TAJ MANSION, C2, 2^ND FLOOR, 27 MILLERS ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 046.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. SATYANAND B S.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MR. DAWOOD SHARIFF @ MR. RIYAZ, S/O LATE DR. SALEH SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO. 5/1, MOSQUE ROAD, FRASER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:34591 WP No. 25488 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM,

¶18

D/O LATE JAMEEL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT NO. 6/21, ISLAMIA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, PERAMBUR NORTH ARCOT DISTRICT,

¶19

TAMILNADU - 635 810.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA.P.N.,ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN OS NO. 5912 OF 2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH NO. 2)- ANNEXURE - A2; ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED ON IA NO. 1, DATED 19.08.2025, IN OS NO. 5912 OF 2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH NO. 2)- ANNEXURE - A.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶24

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:34591 WP No. 25488 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

¶31

" 1. Call for the entire Records in OS No. 5912 of 2025 pending on the file of the Learned I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH No. 2)Annexure - A;

¶32

2. Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other writ of similar nature Quashing the Orders passed on IA No. 1, dated 19.08.2025, in OS No. 5912 of 2025 pending on the file of the Learned I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH No. 2)- Annexure - A;

¶33

3. Grant such other relief/s as it deems fit under the circumstances of the case on hand."

¶34

Heard Sri.Satyanand B.S., learned counsel

¶35

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Rajeswara P.N., learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶36

The petitioner is the plaintiff institutes the suit in O.S.No.5912/2025 seeking injunction against the defendants. The concerned Court only issues emergent notice, does not

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34591 WP No. 25488 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

grant an ex parte injunction as was sought for in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. This Court had granted an interim order on 20.08.2025 which reads as follows:

¶40

"Learned counsel for the petitioner to serve the defendants by way of hand summons and file an acknowledgement of such service.

¶41

List this matter on 3.9.2025.

¶42

The respondents are restrained in so far as 'A' schedule property, till the next date of hearing. "

¶43

The respondents are now represented, and both the

¶44

learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents would in unison submit that the concerned Court be directed to dispose the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, which is pending consideration. The concerned Court shall dispose the application in 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

In the light of the subsistence of the interim order, I deem it appropriate to continue the same for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34591 WP No. 25488 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Learned counsel Sri.P.N.Rajeswara undertakes to

¶49

enter appearance for the defendant in the said suit. The undertaking is placed on record.

¶50

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

[i] Writ Petition is disposed .

¶53

[ii] Interim order subsisting would continue for a period of four weeks.

¶54

[iii] The concerned Court is directed to hear the parties and dispose the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within an outer limit of four weeks, if not earlier, in accordance with law.

¶55

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶56

CBC

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

T. Mohammed Arshad v. Mr. Dawood Shariff @Mr. Riyaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Mohammed Arshad v. Mr. Dawood Shariff @Mr. Riyaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N P Diwakar Seth Vs the Special Land Acquisition Office

Sri. Kempaiah Since Dead by Lrs., Maramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Seetharam C N., Vs M/S Skytop Builders Private Limited

Thomas Philips Vs Smt Vaijayanathi Mala

Smt. Mahadevamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Indramma Vs Sri Muniyappa