Chandrodaya Badavane Nivasigala Kshemabhivrudhi Sangha Vs Sri K Shivakumar

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.27601 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANDRODAYA BADAVANE NIVASIGALA KSHEMABHIVRUDHI SANGHA SY.NO.4, LINGAHADEERANAHALLI CHIKKEGOWDANAPALYA OPP. TO NANDINI BOOTH 100 FEET ROAD, BSK 6^TH STAGE 4^TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 109 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, RAGAVENDRA

¶8

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGISTERED NO.35, BSK 6^TH STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK 100 FEET ROAD, SY.NO.4 AND 5 OF LINGADHEERANAHALLI TALAGHATTAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 109 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON KALEGOWDA

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI VIVEK SUBBAREDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI H.C.NATARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI K.SHIVAKUMAR S/O.KODANDA RAM R/AT NO.171/A, 28^TH MAIN ROAD 6^TH CROSS ROAD, SECTOR-I HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI M.N.UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE EX PARTE IMPUGNED INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 28.08.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.959/2025 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-'A1' AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTRAIN RESPONDENT FROM PUTTING UP ANY CONSTRUCTION IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are defendants before the trial Court in O.S.No.959/2025, being aggrieved by an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondentplaintiff.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶24

The petitioners herein have filed two original suits in O.S.Nos.27/2023 and 28/2023 against the respondent and others in respect of the existing road. The relief sought in the said suits was for declaration with regard to the easementary rights for the alleged illegal modified plan which was modified in the year 2019, wherein an interim

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

order was sought by the petitioners against the respondent and others, who tried to block the two existing roads which are schedule C and D properties in O.S.No.28/2023. In the said suit, the interim order was passed against one Chikkarevanna restraining him not to put up any construction on the existing road. However, the interim application I.A.No.3 for an order as against the respondent herein was dismissed.

¶28

Aggrieved by the said interim order, one of the parties namely, Chikkarevanna had filed two appeals in MA.Nos.4 and 5 of 2024 before the first Appellate Court. The said appeals came to be dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court. However, so far as the relief sought against the respondent herein in MA.No.11/2024, the same is still pending adjudication.

¶29

It is contended by Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri H.C.Nataraja for

¶30

petitioners that despite all these facts, the respondent

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

approached the trial Court by filing a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.959/2025 and obtained an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, thereby removed temporary shed and compound wall and by virtue of such

¶34

an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, the respondent started illegal construction to change the nature and started obstructing the easementary rights of the local residents, thereby the respondent was trying to block the existing road by putting up a permanent commercial complex on the existing road, which is used for more than 40 years.

¶35

4.1 It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel

¶36

that along with the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction, an application came to

¶37

be filed for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC restraining the petitioners-defendants, its office bearers, agents, representatives, members or anyone claiming on its behalf from interfering with the plaintiff's

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever. Upon filing such an application, the trial Court, without hearing the petitioners-defendants, has passed an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction on 28.08.2025 without any proper reasoning, which is a cryptic and unreasoned order. Therefore, the order is bad in law and the same requires to be interfered by this Court.

¶41

4.2 It is also contended by learned Senior Counsel that the respondent-plaintiff along with other allottees have been making attempts to illegally put-up construction on the existing road, which is actually a site property. The respondent-plaintiff has also colluded with the BDA authorities and is making hectic efforts to usurp and occupy the pre-existing road, which is available only for the residents. Admittedly, the petitioners have approached the Civil Court seeking the relief of declaration and nullity of the modified plan which has been created in collusion with the BDA by the respondent and

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

consequently, for a direction to the respondent and others

¶46

not to close the existing roads and obtained an interim order restraining few defendants except the respondent from putting up construction on the existing road.

¶47

4.3 It is further contention of learned Senior Counsel

¶48

that in the present suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff in O.S.No.959/2025 for relief of permanent injunction, the trial Court has proceeded to pass an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction without issuance of notice to the petitioners-defendants and without considering that

¶49

the suit for declaratory relief is pending. It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel that on the basis of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, without issuance of notice and hearing the petitioners-defendants, the trial

¶50

Court has passed an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, which is the subject matter of this petition.

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

4.4 It is the vehement contention of learned Senior

¶54

Counsel that the impugned order passed is illegal, arbitrary, without any proper reasoning and does not provide any cause or substantial reason to grant an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction without issuance of notice to the petitioners-defendants.

¶55

4.5 It is his grievance that the injunction obtained by

¶56

the respondent-plaintiff is a part and parcel of 'C' suit schedule property in the suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.Nos.27 and 28 of 2023 against one Chikkarevanna and others. Despite an order being operating against the said person, the respondent herein has started putting up illegal construction day and night to change the nature of the suit schedule property to block the existing road by taking advantage of dismissal of the interim mandatory injunction against the respondent.

¶57

4.6 It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel

¶58

that this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the

¶59

8 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as

¶63

the trial Court has not passed an order on merits with proper reasons and findings and as to why notice should be dispensed. Therefore, when there is no proper reasons and findings provided in the order, a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable as there exits illegalities and for non performance of the duty cast upon the trial Court. Hence, he seeks to set-aside the said ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction passed on 28.08.2025 and allow this writ petition.

¶64

Per contra , Sri M.N.Umashankar, learned counsel

¶65

appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently contends that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in law and the Registry of this Court has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of this petition for the reason that the present petition would not lie on any orders passed on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Therefore, the

¶66

9 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

petitioners would have to be relegated to other alternative

¶70

remedy available in law.

¶71

5.1 It is also vehemently contended by learned counsel for respondent that the petitioners have not come before this Court with clean hands and they have suppressed the material facts. He has merely provided an internet copy of the impugned order, but has conveniently and deliberately suppressed the production of the detailed order on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶72

5.2 Learned counsel, during the course of

¶73

arguments, has produced the detailed order of the trial Court, wherein proper explanation, reasoning and finding is provided while passing the order. Hence, on this count

¶74

of suppression of material and misleading the Court, the petitioners would not be entitled to any orders at the hands of this Court. Learned counsel further contends that by misleading this Court by providing an internet copy of

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

the order, which is very brief, the petitioners have obtained an interim order. Had this Court been provided with the detailed order then petitioner would not have secured the interim order at the hands of this Court.

¶79

5.3 Learned counsel further contends that when the detailed order is passed by the trial Court on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by providing relevant reasoning and showing the urgency for grant of such an order prior to the issuance of notice to the petitioners-defendants, the question of entertaining

¶80

the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not arise and the petitioners would have to file an appeal against the impugned order. Instead of challenging the impugned order by way of an appeal, the present writ petition is filed, which is not maintainable.

¶81

At the initial stage, this Court after hearing the petitioners, granted an order of status quo to be maintained till the next date of hearing. The same was

¶82

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

extended. During the course of arguments, learned Senior

¶85

Counsel for petitioners contends that he would not mind if this Court to remit the matter back to the trial Court maintaining the order of status quo till the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is disposed of on merits. This was initially objected to by learned counsel for respondent. However, learned counsel for respondent concedes solely on the ground that he is interested in speedy disposal of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and he would continue to maintain the order of status quo with regard to the subject matter initiated till disposal of the application. Therefore, this Court does not delve into the issue of maintainability of the petition as both learned counsels have undertaken to approach the trial Court, file necessary objections and argue the matter on the application under Order XXXIX

¶86

Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, if the order of status quo passed by this Court is continued till disposal of the said application.

¶87

12 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

In view of the submissions made hereinabove,

¶91

this Court is not inclined to delve into the issue of maintainability of the petition, so also, refrains itself from expressing any opinion on the merits of the application and deems it appropriate to dispose off the matter by remanding the matter to the trial Court for disposal of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Therefore, it would be appropriate to relegate the parties to the trial Court to address their arguments on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶92

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶93

ORDER

¶94

i) This petition is disposed off; ii) Parties are relegated to the trial Court for addressing their arguments on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC;

¶95

iii) The petitioners-defendants are at liberty to file objections to the said application and urge all grounds that are taken up in this petition, so also,

¶96

13 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:43368 WP No. 27601 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

the respondent-plaintiff would be at liberty to argue the matter before the trial Court;

¶100

iv) The trial Court shall dispose of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law preferably within a period of 15 days from 05.11.2025.

¶101

v) In the meanwhile, status quo shall be maintained by both the parties with regard to the schedule property till the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is disposed of by the trial Court in accordance with law;

¶102

vi) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter.

¶103

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶104

LB

¶105

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Chandrodaya Badavane Nivasigala Kshemabhivrudhi Sangha v. Sri K Shivakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrodaya Badavane Nivasigala Kshemabhivrudhi Sangha v. Sri K Shivakumar

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

Rohan Salian Vs Naveen R

Sri. Alemada K Harsha Vs a M Monnaiah

Sri. Venkatesh Vs Smt. H. P. Latha

Sri Robert Vs Smt Savithri

Phantom Sports India Private Limited Vs Sri. Jagadish Gowda R M

Vasantha Kumar D Vs M v Manjunatha