Basheer S M., v. P B Mohammad Kunhi

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2025WP/28271/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition (GM-CPC) WP No. 28271 of 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:46003; temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC; prima facie case; balance of convenience; hardship; no mini trial at interim stage; RTC extracts; revenue records; possession; permanent injunction suit O.S.No.425/2023; M.A.No.9/2025 appeal; adverse possession suit O.S.NO.176/2021; Land Tribunal; Revenue Authorities; certiorari; Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Bantwal; Dakshina Kannada; interim order confirmed by first Appellate Court; writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None — the writ petition was dismissed and the interim injunction orders were left undisturbed ¶ORDER

Basheer S M., Vs P B Mohammad Kunhi — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the writ petition was dismissed and the interim injunction orders were left undisturbed

¶ORDER

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order granting temporary injunction in O.S.No.425/2023 and its confirmation by the first Appellate Court in M.A.No.9/2025 suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

There is no illegality or perversity in the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the first Appellate Court, and no good ground or cogent reason to interfere with those orders.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

On an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the trial Court is not required to conduct a mini trial by going into detailed aspects of every document and intricacies; what is required to be seen is whether a prima facie case is made out, balance of convenience, and the hardship that would be caused.

¶14

Key takeaways

Having looked into the records, submissions and the earlier litigations in the writ petition and writ appeal, a prima facie case is made out; the trial Court and first Appellate Court concluded on prima facie materials (revenue records, RTC extracts and other records) that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.ratio¶15
No material was placed by the defendants to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property either before the trial Court or the first Appellate Court, despite their contentions (including reliance on the plaintiff's earlier application to the Revenue Authorities) being raised and negatived at all prior stages including the writ Court.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Pradeep Singh Yerur J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by defendants Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.425/2023 (permanent injunction suit) challenging the trial Court's temporary injunction order dated 25.07.2025 on IA No.2 (Annexure-B) and its confirmation in M.A.No.9/2025 by order dated 20.08.2025 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal (Annexure-A). Held: at the stage of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, the trial Court is not required to conduct a mini trial into every document; it need only examine prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship. On the basis of revenue records and RTC extracts, the Courts below found the plaintiff in prima facie possession and enjoyment of schedule A property; the defendants placed no material to show their own possession, their identical contentions (including the plaintiff's earlier application for possession before the Revenue Authorities and the earlier adverse-possession suit O.S.NO.176/2021) having been raised and negatived in earlier writ petition and writ appeal proceedings. Finding no illegality or perversity, the Court declined to interfere, dismissed the petition, and left it open to the trial Court to consider the matter further upon trial and pass suitable orders if deemed necessary.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46003 WP No. 28271 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 28271 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BASHEER S M.

¶9

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O. LATE SULAIMAN BEARY R/AT MATA HOUSE KADESHWALYA VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK D.K.DISTRICT - 574 325.

¶10

ABDUL RAHIMAN S/O. LATE ABOOBAKKAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT MATA HOUSE KADESHWALYA VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574 325.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

P. B. MOHAMMAD KUNHI

¶16

S/O. LATE BAPA MONU BEARY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT BAMBILA HOUSE TEKKARU VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.DISTRICT -574241.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:46003 WP No. 28271 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2025 IN MA.NO.9/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL, D.K.DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent.

¶27

Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶28

This petition is filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking following reliefs:

¶29

"i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Order dated:20.08.2025 in MA.No.9/2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K.District, vide Annexure-A.,

¶30

ii. Issue a writ of Certiorari, quashing the Order dated:25.07.2025 on IA No.2 in OS.No.425/2023 passed by the learned Principal

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46003 WP No. 28271 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K., vide Annexure-B,

¶34

iii. Issue any other writ of direction to meet the ends of justice."

¶35

The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.425/2023 against the defendants for permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein he sought for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men, servants etc., from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of schedule A property pending disposal of the suit. The affidavit was also annexed to the said application.

¶36

After hearing the arguments, the trial Court has allowed the said application and granted an interim order restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of schedule A property till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by which, the defendants have questioned the said impugned order before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada in M.A.No.9/2025.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46003 WP No. 28271 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

After hearing the submissions put forth by the learned counsels for parties, the first Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved by which, the defendants are before this Court.

¶40

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel

¶41

for defendants that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have totally ignored the antecedent of the case before the revenue Authority, the mahazar that was drawn and the application that was filed, which was admitted by the plaintiff in his plaint to that effect. The plaintiff had filed an application seeking possession from the defendants before the revenue Authorities. However, the statement is made that the plaintiff was thereafter in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the basis of RTC extracts and other revenue records.

¶42

It is the grievance of the learned counsel for defendants that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in not looking into the revenue records and the statement of the plaintiff. However, the trial

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:46003 WP No. 28271 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Court had granted an interim order and the same has been confirmed by the first Appellate Court, which is contrary to the material placed before the Revenue Authorities.

¶47

It is further contended by the learned counsel for defendants that no doubt the writ petition filed by the defendants came to be dismissed and the writ appeal also came to be rejected and the orders were passed in favour of the plaintiff. However, learned counsel further contends that the proceedings before the Land Tribunal provide for summary eviction and the plaintiff has admitted that he had filed an application for eviction of the defendants and it is a matter of record. Thereafter, the plaintiff has not fairly mentioned as to when the defendants are evicted from the suit schedule property. On the basis of the RTC extracts and other revenue records, the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction. Without considering all these aspects, the trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction, which is illegal and contrary to the materials placed on record.

¶48

Learned counsel for defendants further contended that the defendants filed a suit in O.S.NO.176/2021 against the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:46003 WP No. 28271 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

plaintiff for declaration that the defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession and sought for consequential permanent injunction. It is also contended that as a counterblast to the suit filed by the defendants, the plaintiff filed the present suit in O.S.No.425/2023 for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the suit schedule A property even though the claim of the plaintiff was rejected way back in the year 2002. Therefore, the impugned orders passed the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court are bad in law and the same are liable to be set aside.

¶53

Per contra , learned counsel for plaintiff vehemently contends that there is no perversity, illegality or arbitrariness in the orders passed by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court. On the basis of materials placed before the trial Court and the earlier proceedings of the writ petition and writ appeal, the trial Court agreed to the contentions of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and passed the order for grant of temporary injunction. It is also contended by learned counsel for plaintiff

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46003 WP No. 28271 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

that there is no mention with regard to the possession of the defendants in the schedule A property in any of the materials placed by the defendants before the trial Court or the first Appellate Court or this Court. Therefore, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court.

¶57

It is further contended that the first Appellate Court reconsidering the entire submissions of the learned counsels for parties and materials placed before this Court including the proceedings in writ petition and writ appeal, has come to the conclusion that no cogent material has been placed by the defendants to show that they are in possession of the schedule A property with regard to survey No.204/1 measuring to an extent of 2-91 acres (old 204/1C measuring 2-91 acres) is not forthcoming in the report and part from that, the very same contentions were put forth by the defendants before this Court in the earlier proceedings in writ petition and also in the writ appeal, wherein the same was negatived and not appreciated by this Court.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:46003 WP No. 28271 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

No doubt, the defendants have stated that they are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule A property and the trial Court has ignored the revenue records with regard to the application having been made by the plaintiff to seek possession from the defendants, but the fact remains that no material has been placed by the defendants to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property either before the trial Court or the first Appellate Court. However, the fact remains that these contentions were raised right from the trial Court and the first Appellate Court and even writ Court and the same has been negatived.

¶62

When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the trial Court is not required to conduct mini trial by going into the detailed aspects of every document and the intricacies. But what is required to be seen is that whether a prima facie case is made out, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused. The trial Court and the first Appellate Court having gone into these prima facie materials, have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the basis of the

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:46003 WP No. 28271 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

revenue records, RTC extracts and other records placed before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the trial Court had granted an interim order of temporary injunction, which was confirmed by the first Appellate Court.

¶67

This Court, while considering the petition filed by the petitioners-defendants, has to look into whether there is any illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. Having looked into the records, the submissions and the earlier litigations in the writ petition and writ appeal, prima facie case is made out. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in granting of an order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court, which is affirmed by the first Appellate Court. It is, of course, open to the trial Court upon trial to consider the further case or otherwise, if it deems necessary to pass suitable orders.

¶68

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the first Appellate Court.

¶69