Sri Robert Vs Smt Savithri — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Robert Vs Smt Savithri — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application IA No.1 allowed; ad-interim order of temporary injunction granted restraining the respondent/defendant from digging or putting up construction on the access road to the plaintiffs' 'B' schedule property till the next date of hearing; counsel directed to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners/plaintiffs were right in questioning the trial Court's non-passing of any order (ad-interim temporary injunction) on IA No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC, where no notice had been served to the respondent/defendant after the emergent notice was ordered. +1 more

Court's answer

It is incumbent upon, and the duty of, the trial Court to grant an ad-interim temporary injunction before the appearance of the defendant where, by deferring the order until notice, hardship, inconvenience, threat of dispossession or obstruction would be caused to the plaintiffs and delay in issuance of notice would defeat their rights.

Ratio / Principle

As stated by the plaintiffs, if there is no other access road to approach the 'B' schedule property, there is an imminent threat of blockage of the passage, which if not restrained would cause irreparable injury and hardship to the plaintiffs; therefore any blockage to the access road should be refrained ad-interim till the appearance of the defendant.

Key takeaways

The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience is in their favour, and much hardship would be caused absent an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from putting up construction or blocking the access road to the plaintiffs' 'B' schedule property till the next date of hearing before the trial Court; accordingly IA No.1 is allowed.ratio¶75
The trial Court is at liberty to hear application IA No.1 afresh after the appearance of the respondent/defendant without being influenced by this order, the observations herein being solely for the grant of the ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction, and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.ratio¶83

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 32163 of 2025 (GM-CPC), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, decided 29.10.2025. Petitioners/plaintiffs (Robert and George Edward, sons of Ignasappa) in O.S No. 751/2025 before the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal challenged (Annexure-A) the trial Court's failure to pass any order - beyond issuing an emergent notice with suit summons - on their IA No.1/25 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking an ad-interim temporary injunction restraining respondent Smt Savithri from blocking the sole kutcha-road access ('A' schedule, averred as servient heritage/common passage of about 15 feet width) to their landlocked 'B' schedule property, after a 06.10.2025 attempt by the defendant to dig the passage with a JCB and erect a compound wall. Holding that the trial Court is duty-bound to consider the record and grant an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction before the defendant's appearance where delay in notice would defeat the plaintiffs' rights amid imminent threat of obstruction or dispossession, and finding on the plaint, affidavit and photographs a prima facie case, balance of convenience in the plaintiffs' favour and prospective irreparable hardship, the Court disposed of the writ petition allowing IA No.1 and granted an ad-interim temporary injunction restraining digging or construction on the access road till the next date of hearing; counsel was directed to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC; the trial Court was left free to rehear the application uninfluenced by these observations, the Court expressly disclaiming any opinion on merits.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43329 WP No. 32163 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32163 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI ROBERT S/O. IGNASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1578, OPPOSITE ROYAL MERIDIAN LAYOUT, D.C. HALLI ROAD, BEGUR, BANGALORE-560 068.

SRI. GEORGE EDWARD S/O. IGNASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1578, OPPOSITE ROYAL MERIDIAN LAYOUT, D.C. HALLI ROAD, BEGUR, BANGALORE-560 068.

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. VIJAY SIMHA M D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT SAVITHRI W/O. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 19, NAGAIAHANAPALYA, MARUTI SEVA NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 033.

…PETITIONERS

…RESPONDENT

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL IN

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43329 WP No. 32163 of 2025

HC-KAR

O.S NO. 751/2025 DATED 15.10.2025 IN I.A NO.1/25 VIDE ANNEXURE A., AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

This Court does not find the need to issue

notice to the respondent/defendant as no notice was served to the respondent/ defendant before the trial Court

in the original suit proceedings after the emergent notice was ordered.

The petitioners/plaintiffs are questioning the

non-passing of the order on the application filed in IA.No.1 under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC for the grant of an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, her servants, or anybody acting under her

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43329 WP No. 32163 of 2025

HC-KAR

from blocking the access road to the plaintiffs' suit schedule property in the interest of justice and equity.

The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. Petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for the relief of a permanent injunction against the defendant. Along with the plaint, two applications were filed. IA.No.1 is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 for direction to the defendant to not block the access road of the plaintiffs to the 'B' schedule property, which is their absolute property through the 'A' schedule property, which is the only access to the 'B' schedule property.

The trial Court was not convinced by the

arguments and the materials placed by the plaintiffs and refrained from passing any order on the application except for the issuance of an emergent notice along with suit summons to the defendants. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43329 WP No. 32163 of 2025

HC-KAR

I have perused the application IA.No.1 filed

under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. This application is filed specifically for a direction to restrain the defendant or agents or anyone claiming through her from blocking the access road to the plaintiffs' suit schedule property running through 'A' schedule property.

In the plaint as well as in the affidavit annexed to the application IA No.1 petitioner has clearly stated in paragraph Nos.10,11,12 in the affidavit annexed to the application IA No.1 as under

"10. I further submit the Schedule B property is a land lock property which is situated at the eastern side to the land in Sy No. 180/2 having access through land in Sy No 180/2 to approach main road (Begur -Koppa Road) and there is a common road which runs on the northern edge of the Sy No. 180/2 which is used by the land owners of Sy.No. 180/3 and 180/1 for more than 30 years by plaintiffs and their predecessors in title. The said common road is measuring about 15 feet (North to

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43329 WP No. 32163 of 2025

HC-KAR

south) in width and 110 feet in length (East to west) which is more specifically described as Schedule A property and the said passage/path way/road to reach my property i.e., the Schedule - B Property and which is ingress and egress to the Schedule-B Property. Therefore I have to go through SCHEDULE-A of the suit schedule property only, to reach SCHEDULE-B of the suit schedule Property. Except SCHEDULE-A property, there is no other access to enter my property in SCHEDULE-B of the suit schedule property.

11. I state that Schedule A property is Servient heritage for Schedule B Property which is dominant heritage for use and enjoyment of Schedule B Property in law.

12. I state that now the defendant with an intention to knock off the property belonging to me by forcing me to sell the property to her at a dirt cheap prise is trying to cut the access/ entrance to the plaintiffs property by blocking the right of way and is trying to dig a trench in the access path which is a common and also to put up a compound wall where I will not have any access to enter their Schedule B property. Thus defendant is trying to

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43329 WP No. 32163 of 2025

HC-KAR

close the passage/path way measuring 15 feet X 155 feet as stated above where I am having only way to go to my property without having no other access from anywhere else. I further submit that on 6/10/2025 the defendant herein brought a JCB and tried digging on Schedule A property by closing the common road i.e., the schedule -A property which the I am using to go to my property which was resisted by these plaintiffs. The defendant is also trying to construct a compound wall on the Schedule A property. The copies of the photographs are herewith produced to establish the illegal act of the defendant herein and trying to close the passage/path way of Schedule -A itself. I submit that me and my family member have easement right of way to use the A schedule property as access road to approach Schedule B property."

Apparently it is seen that the claim of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners of the 'B' schedule property and to approach the 'B' schedule property the only access available to plaintiffs is to pass through the Kutcha road/passage through the 'A' schedule property, which is apparently very clearly stated in the

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43329 WP No. 32163 of 2025

HC-KAR

affidavit annexed to the application and so also in the plaint.

This court has also looked into the photographs produced by the plaintiffs, which clearly show there is an access road, though it is not a proper road (kutcha road) until the contrary is proved by the respondent/defendant on appearance.

In a suit for injunction when an application is filed for temporary injunction, it becomes a duty and obligation of the trial Court to consider the merits of the matter without conducting a mini trial, at the same time, go through the materials placed on the record and understand the urgency and the imminent threat of either the property being wasted, damaged, alienated or wrongfully sold or any threat or intention to remove or dispose of the property or any threat to dispossess the plaintiffs or cause injury to the plaintiffs or alienation of any such act that would cause damage or harassment or

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43329 WP No. 32163 of 2025

HC-KAR

inconvenience to the plaintiffs before the defendant comes on record.

It becomes the duty and the obligation of the trial Court to look into these documents carefully and cautiously, and the Court has to come to a conclusion based on the materials placed and being satisfied that by not granting such an order ad-interim ex-parte, the hardship, inconvenience, threat of dispossession, or obstruction would be caused to the plaintiffs and by issuance of notice to the defendant, the same would defeat the rights of the plaintiffs due to delay in issuance of notice. It is incumbent and the duty upon the trial Court

to grant an ad-interim temporary injunction before the appearance of the defendant in such facts and

circumstances of the case.

In the present case on hand, on perusal of these statements made in the affidavit and the plaint, it is apparently seen that plaintiffs claims their ownership to

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:43329 WP No. 32163 of 2025

HC-KAR

Schedule 'B ' property and seeks access to approach the 'B' schedule property through 'A' schedule property in which they claim that the road/passage or the common usage of the passage to approach their property at Schedule 'B' property measures 15 feet north to south in width and 110 feet in length.

Though this Court does not prima facie agree with the measurements so stated nevertheless it appears by the photographs produced and the averments made in the affidavit that there is a road that is an approach road to the 'B' schedule property of the plaintiffs. Therefore, as stated by the plaintiffs if there is no other access road to approach the property, then there is an imminent threat of any blockage of this passage which leads to the property of the defendant which if not restrained, would cause irreparable injury and hardship to the plaintiffs. Therefore, any blockage to the access road leading to the property of plaintiffs in the 'B' schedule property should be refrained ad-interim till the appearance of the defendant.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:43329 WP No. 32163 of 2025

HC-KAR

I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have

made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience is still in his favour so also much hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if an ad- interim ex-parte temporary injunction is not granted restraining the respondent/defendant from putting up any construction or blocking the access road to the plaintiffs' 'B' schedule property as shown in the schedule to the plaint and the application till the next date of hearing before the trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following Order.

ORDER

The petition is disposed of.

The application IA No. 1 filed by the plaintiffs is

allowed. An ad-interim order of temporary injunction is granted restraining the respondent/defendant from digging or putting up construction on the access road to the plaintiffs' 'B' schedule property till the next date of hearing.

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43329 WP No. 32163 of 2025

HC-KAR

The trial Court is at liberty to hear the application IA No.1 after the appearance of the respondent/defendant without being influenced by this order as this order is passed solely for the grant of adinterim order and any observations or opinions expressed are solely for the reason of the grant of an ad interim exparte temporary injunction based on the materials produced before this Court.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioners to comply

with Order XXXIX Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC before this Court.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

RCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8