Sri. Dr. Chandrasekhar S Salimath v. A3 Developers

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2025WP/28933/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ certiorari; GM-CPC; O.S.No.6914/2024, XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge CCH-32 Bengaluru; emergent notice on temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC; unauthorised illegal pent house, Atri Nest flat owners; A3 Developers; BBMP; interim protection of 28.10.2024 continued till disposal of I.A.No.4; no finding on merits; Trial Court to decide independently; no costs; Karnataka HC 21.11.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:48272.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: interim order dated 28.10.2024 continued till disposal of I.A.No.4 before the Trial Court, expressly without recording findings on merits; Trial Court to decide independently; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory application disposed of. ¶¶83

Sri. Dr. Chandrasekhar S Salimath Vs A3 Developers — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶83

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue quashing the order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure-Q) in O.S.No.6914/2024 passed by the XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru, on I.A.No.4 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC. +1 more

¶¶62

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that continuance of its interim order till the disposal of the petitioners' application would meet the ends of justice.

¶¶78

Key takeaways

The order dated 28.10.2024 passed by this Court is continued till the disposal of I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court.ratio¶¶84-85
The continued interim order shall not be construed as a recording of any finding on the merits of the case.ratio¶¶86
The Trial Court shall consider the case on its merits independently, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), 21.11.2025 — W.P. No.28933/2024 (GM-CPC), under Article 227 of the Constitution, by fifteen flat owners of 'Atri Nest', Bengaluru (represented by GPA holders petitioners 2 and 12) against A3 Developers, its partners, and BBMP officials. In suit O.S.No.6914/2024 (XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, CCH-32) seeking permanent injunction against an allegedly unauthorised 'pent house' contrary to the sanctioned plan, the Trial Court, on the temporary-injunction application (I.A.No.4, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC), issued emergent notice instead of disposing of the application, prompting this writ. The High Court, noting its own interim protection of 28.10.2024, allowed the writ petition, continued that interim order till disposal of I.A.No.4, clarified that the continued order recorded no finding on merits, and directed the Trial Court to consider the case independently. No order as to costs; pending interlocutory application disposed of. (NC: 2025:KHC:48272)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48272 W.P. No.28933/2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.28933/2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. DR. CHANDRASEKHAR S. SALIMATH S/O DR. SHIVANANDAWAMI S. SALIMATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶9

OWNER FLAT NO.101, ATRI NEST.

¶10

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM

¶11

Location: High

¶12

Court Of Karnataka

¶13

RAJENDRA SINHA N. JADEJA S/O NARAYAN BHAI ABHAYARAJ JADEJA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OWNER FLAT NO.103, ATRI NEST.

¶14

SMT. KAVITHA K. KULKARNI W/O SRI. KRISHNA M. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶15

SRI. KRISHNA M. KULKARNI S/O SRI. MANIK RAO AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶16

PETITIONERS NO.3 & 4 ARE JOINT OWNER OF FLAT NO.104 ATRI NEST.

¶17

SRI. MUTHALIK RAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O GUNDE RAO AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS OWNER FLAT NO.106, ATRI NEST.

¶18

SRI. MAHANTESH B. HALLUR S/O SRI. BASAPPA S. HALLUR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48272 W.P. No.28933/2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI. BASAPPA HALLUR S/O LATE. SHIDDALINGAPPA HALLUR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶22

SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI B. HALLUR W/O SRI. BASAPPA HALLUR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶23

PETITIONER NOS.8, 9 & 10 ARE JOINT OWNERS OF FLAT NO.201 ATRI NEST.

¶24

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S. KAMATAGI S/O SRI. SHASHIKANT V. KAMATAGI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶25

SMT. SONIA RAGHAVENDRA KAMATAGI W/O SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S. KAMATAGI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶26

PETITIONER NOS.11 & 12 ARE JOINT OWNERS OF FLAT NO.202 ATRI NEST.

¶27

SRI. K.V. PHANI BHUSHANA S/O SRI. K. VENKATACHALIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS OWNER FLAT NO.203, ATRI NEST.

¶28

SRI. PRAMOD DIWAKAR S/O SRI. NARAYANA RAO DIWAKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OWNER FLAT NO.204, ATRI NEST.

¶29

SRI. SHIVA KUMAR .V S/O SRI. VENKATARAMAN .G AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶30

SMT. PRIYADARSHINI .N W/O SRI. SHIVA KUMAR .V

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48272 W.P. No.28933/2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

PETITIONER NOS.15 & 16 ARE JOINT OWNERS FLAT NO.205, ATRI NEST.

¶34

SRI. DR. PRAMOD MUTHALIK S/O SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO MUTHALIK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OWNER FLAT NO.206, ATRI NEST.

¶35

REP. BY GPA HOLDERS I.E., PETITIONER NO.2 & 12.

¶36

ALL ARE R/AT. THEIR RESPECTIVE FLATS AT ATRI NEST, NO.254/2 6TH CROSS, PAPAREDDY PALYA BEHIND VINAYAKA SHANKARA TEMPLE BENGALURU-560072 REP. BY GPA HOLDERS PETITIONER 2 AND 12.

¶37

…PETITIONERS

¶38

(BY SMT. H.R. ANITHA, ADV., FOR SRI. PUNEETH KUMAR A, ADV.,)

¶39

AND:

¶40

A3 DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS PARTNERS NAMELY:

¶41

A) SRI. ANIL KUMAR DESHPANDE.

¶42

B) SMT. ARCHANA DESHPANDE.

¶43

REGD. OFFICE AT NO.37 M.N. KRISHNA RAO ROAD OPP. TO LAL BAGH WEST GATE BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶44

SRI. ANIL KUMAR DESHPANDE S/O SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO DESHPANDE AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:48272 W.P. No.28933/2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

SMT. ARCHANA DESHPANDE W/O ANIL KUMAR DESHPANDE AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶49

BOTH ARE LAND OWNERS AND ARE R/AT FLAT NO.306, ATRI NEST NO.254/2, 6TH CROSS PAPAREDDY PALYA, BEHIND VINAYAKA SHANKARA TEMPLE BENGALURU-560072.

¶50

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WARD NO.129, PAPAREDDYPALYA BBMP, BENGALURU-560072.

¶51

CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP, N.R.SQUARE BENGALURU-560002.

¶52

…RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADV., FOR R4 AND R5)

¶54

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2024 AT ANNEXURE-Q IN O.S.NO.6914/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED HON'BLE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH32) BENGALURU ON I.A.NO.4 UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC & ETC.

¶55

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

¶56

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:48272 W.P. No.28933/2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

ORAL ORDER

¶61

This petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

¶62

"a) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.09.2024 at Annexure-Q in O.S.No.6914/2024 passed by the learned Hon'ble XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-32) Bengaluru on I.A.No.4 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w section 151 of CPC.

¶63

b) Grant permanent Injunction restraining the Respondents No.1 to 3, their henchmen, agents, representatives, servants, supporters or anybody acting on their behalf from continuing the construction of unauthorized or alienating illegal "PENT HOUSE" on the terrace floor of the schedule property till disposal of suit."

¶64

Smt.H.R.Anitha, learned counsel for the

¶65

petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from continuing the construction of unauthorised illegal pent house in the premises. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed an application seeking temporary injunction. The Trial Court, without understanding the urgency issued emergent notice on the application which

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:48272 W.P. No.28933/2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

compelled the petitioners to file this writ petition. It is submitted that sufficient material was placed before the Trial Court to indicate that the construction carried out by the defendants was illegal and contrary to the plan. The said aspect was not appreciated by the Trial Court. Hence,

¶70

she seeks to allow the petition.

¶71

Per contra , Sri.Kashyap N.Naik, learned counsel

¶72

for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the writ petition is liable to be rejected as a pre-mature one. The Trial Court has issued emergent notice and now the defendants have entered appearance. The Trial Court can be directed to consider the pending application on its merits after hearing both the parties. Hence, he seeks to pass appropriate orders.

¶73

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material available on record. I have

¶74

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:48272 W.P. No.28933/2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both the sides.

¶78

The petitioners filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 seeking a restrainment order against them on the ground that they are putting unauthorised construction as a pent house in the premises. It is the contention that the said construction is in contrary to the sanctioned plan. The Trial Court has not disposed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but has issued emergent notice on the said application. It is to be noticed that this Court, vide order dated 28.10.2024 has considered the urgency and granted interim protection. In my considered view, if the interim order granted by this Court is continued till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner, ends of justice would be met. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶79

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:48272 W.P. No.28933/2024

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

ORDER

¶83

(1) The writ petition is allowed.

¶84

(2) The order dated 28.10.2024 passed by this

¶85

Court is continued till the disposal of I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court. The interim order

¶86

granted by this Court which is continued till the consideration of the application filed by the petitioner shall not be construed as a recording of finding on merits of the case.

¶87

(3) The Trial Court shall consider the case on its

¶88

merits independently without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the aforesaid order.

¶89

Consequently, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.

¶90

No order as to costs.

¶91

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶92

¶93