Partly allowed

P Balasubramanyam v. K.A.S.P Mahadevan

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025WP/28455/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a writ petition challenging the lower court's failure to pass an injunction, granted an ad-interim order of status quo. The Court decided to dispense with notice to respondents, finding a prima facie case. It ordered all parties to maintain the status quo regarding construction or demolition on the suit property until the next hearing, without adjudicating the merit

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim order of status quo maintained by all parties regarding construction or demolition on the suit property till the next hearing; petition disposed of.

P Balasubramanyam Vs K.A.S.P Mahadevan — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45092 WP No. 28455 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 28455 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

P BALASUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE V PERIYSAMY, R/A NO. 21, LUMBINI 23/24, PALACE CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE 560020

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

K.A.S.P MAHADEVAN AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS PERMANENTLY AT NO. 69/112 C, GOLDEN ROCK ESTATE, VELLAKODI POST, YERCAUD SALEM - 636002.

¶13

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

¶14

SRI P NAGARAJ GOWDA AGED 75 YEARS, S/O PUTTASWAMMANNA, R/A NO. 9, 17TH CROSS, MTS LAYOUT, KENGERI BANGALORE 560 060.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER THE ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE VI, ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU - CCH 11 IN OS NO. 6351/2025 ON 09.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:45092 WP No. 28455 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XXXIX, RULE 1 AND 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 VIDE ANNEXURE -G1.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Notice to respondents/defendants is not served

¶26

in the trial Court hence this Court does not find the need

¶27

or necessity to issue notice to respondents/defendants.

¶28

The petitioner is the plaintiff in

¶29

O.S.No.6531/2025 who filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants.

¶30

Along with the suit, petitioner/plaintiff filed an application seeking an order of temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants restraining them from causing any further interference or damage to the suit schedule property. On the said application, the trial Court issued emergent notice to the defendants and suit summons and

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:45092 WP No. 28455 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

did not pass any order in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, aggrieved by which petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

¶35

As extracted by the trial Court in its order, the petitioner/plaintiff claims to be the lawful owner of the suit schedule property. The petitioner/plaintiff has claimed that the defendants are not the owners of the suit schedule property, the property was leased to the plaintiff by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and subsequently the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the property and accordingly an agreement to sale was entered into by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Part payment was made by the petitioner/plaintiff and since the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 did not execute the sale deed, a suit came to be filed in O.S.No.3844/2000 before the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for enforcement of the sale agreement.

¶36

Consequently the defendant No.1/respondent No.1 who is the owner of the suit schedule property filed a

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:45092 WP No. 28455 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

suit for recovery of possession in O.S.No.7059/2002. Both

¶41

the cases were clubbed together, tried together and a common judgment came to be passed. Suit of the petitioner/plaintiff came to be decreed whereas the suit of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has filed two RFAs in RFA

¶42

No.83/2015 and RFA No.84/2015.

¶43

This being the state of affairs, it is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that to enforce the decree in his favour granted by the trial Court on the relief of specific performance, he has filed execution petition in EP.No.2053/2024 which is pending adjudication. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.2/defendant No.

¶44

2 acting in the guise of instructions and agent of the respondent No.1/defendant No. 1 is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence it necessitated the petitioner/plaintiff to file the suit for permanent injunction

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45092 WP No. 28455 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

against both defendant No. 1/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2/defendant No. 2

¶48

The trial Court has issued notice on the application under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and on the suit and has not granted an injunction or any order in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, aggrieved by which he is before this Court. The short point for consideration in this matter is whether the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to an ad-interim order prior to issuance of notice to the respondents/defendants.

¶49

It is to be seen that while considering the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of CPC, the trial court is required to go through the averments made in the application and also the pleadings in the plaint. To decide on the interim application to either grant an injunction or reject the temporary ad interim injunction

¶50

in order to protect the property, preserve the property in the stage where it is, and protect it from any damage and the threat or interference that is caused by the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:45092 WP No. 28455 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

defendants, which has not been done by the trial court while passing the orders on this application, as it has merely issued notice.

¶55

In the case on hand, it is stated that the

¶56

petitioner/ plaintiff has succeeded in a suit filed for specific performance against the first defendant who is the respondent No.1 herein, which is decreed and he has initiated an execution petition for enforcement of the said decree, which is pending adjudication. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 against the plaintiff in OS No.7059/2022 came to be dismissed seeking recovery of possession.

¶57

When a suit for recovery of possession is dismissed and a specific performance suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed, apparently it could be assumed and inferred that the possession is not with the respondent No.1/defendant No. 1. Now in the present case, it is stated that the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:45092 WP No. 28455 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

schedule property of the petitioner/plaintiff. It is a matter that requires to be heard after the appearance of the defendants. However, in the meanwhile if an interim order is not granted, that could be interference and meddling with the property causing further damage and precipitation and multiplicity of proceedings by either of the parties.

¶62

Therefore this Court at this stage deems it appropriate to pass an ad-interim order of maintenance of "status quo" by all parties to the suit till next date of hearing. The defendants on appearance could be at liberty to defend the application and the suit by filing necessary objections to the application and seek for vacating the order of the status quo which is granted ad- interim by this Court on furnishing such relevant materials and to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶63

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie case is made out for grant of an ad-interim order of status quo to be maintained by all parties to the

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45092 WP No. 28455 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

suit, as it will not cause any injustice or hardship or harm

¶67

to either of the parties. Under the circumstances I pass

¶68

the following order.

¶69

ORDER

¶70

The petition is disposed of.

¶71

An order of "status quo" with regard to putting up any construction or demolition of any structures in the suit schedule property shall be maintained by the petitioner as well as the respondents who are plaintiffs and defendants before the trial Court till next date of hearing.

¶72

It is needless to mention that this Court has not

¶73

expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, as this Court has passed the order for sole consideration of grant of an order of status quo ad-interim ex-parte.

¶74

Respondents/defendants are at liberty to file necessary applications or to produce documents and argue the matter for either vacating or modifying the interim order of status quo.

¶75

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:45092 WP No. 28455 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

The trial Court is at liberty to hear the parties

¶79

and pass appropriate orders on the application without

¶80

being influenced by the observations made by this Court, which are made only for the grant of ad-interim ex-parte order of status quo.

¶81

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff to comply with Order XXXIX Rule No.3 read with Section 151 of CPC before this Court.

¶82

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶83

RCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

P Balasubramanyam v. K.A.S.P Mahadevan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Balasubramanyam v. K.A.S.P Mahadevan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jacay Hospitalities LLP Vs M/S Indra Prastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Chandramma Vs K M Mahadevegowda

Sri M Channa Krishnamurthy Vs Smt M Anusuya Devi

Smt. Renukamma Vs Mr. B G Muralidhar

M R Srinivas Vs Squadron Developers Private Limited

Sri. K. M. Rajendran Vs Sri. Gopal Reddy