Disposed¶32

Kempamma v. Panchayath Development Officer

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2025WP/3755/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition; interim injunction/status quo; O.S.No.244/2016 permanent injunction suit; M.A.No.4/2017 appellate order setting aside interim order dated 31.03.2017; Grama Panchayath Development Officer; access/pathway dispute over suit schedule B property; Nagamangala; direction to maintain status quo till disposal of suit; one-year outer limit for trial court disposal; respondent served and unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Parties directed to maintain status quo with regard to suit schedule B property till disposal of O.S.No.244/2016; trial Court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously within an outer limit of one year from receipt of certified copy of the order. ¶32

Kempamma Vs Panchayath Development Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 challenging the appellate order setting aside the interim order in O.S.No.244/2016 ought to be disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo over suit schedule B property until disposal of the suit.

¶28

Court's answer

Continuation/extension of the interim order of status quo earlier granted by this Court would cause no prejudice, whereas refusal would defeat the very purpose of filing the suit.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Petition disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to suit schedule B property till disposal of O.S.No.244/2016.

¶32

Key takeaways

Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously within an outer limit of one year from receipt of certified copy of this order.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), single Bench of M.G.S. Kamal J., disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.244/2016 (a permanent injunction suit concerning suit schedule B property, alleged to be used as access to suit schedule A property situated on its southern side), against the Panchayath Development Officer of Karadahalli Grama Panchayath. The petition challenged the order dated 21.12.2023 in M.A.No.4/2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, setting aside the interim order dated 31.03.2017 restraining the respondent from constructing any building or structure. The respondent, though served, was neither present nor represented. Noting that the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of PW1 and that this Court had by order dated 29.02.2024 directed the parties to maintain status quo, continued from time to time, the Court held that continuing status quo would cause no prejudice while refusal would defeat the purpose of filing the suit. The petition was disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to suit schedule B property till disposal of the suit, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously within an outer limit of one year from receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30795 WP No. 3755 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3755 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KEMPAMMA

¶10

W/O LATE KALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O KALLINATHAPURA VILLAGE, DEVALAPURA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 445.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. BHARGAVA D BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KARADAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KARADAHALLI, DEVALAPURA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 445.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 IN MA NO.04/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NAGAMANGALA (ANNEXURE-A).

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:30795 WP No. 3755 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that the plaintiff is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2023 passed in M.A.No.4/2017 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, by which the interim order dated 31.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.244/2016 restraining the respondent, their agents, representatives etc., from not to construct any building, structure, was set aside. He submits that the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.244/2016 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the defendant/respondent herein for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule `B’ property. He submits that the proceedings in the said suit are now at the stage of cross examination of PW1. That this Court by order dated 29.02.2024 while issuing notice to respondents/defendants had directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the said date and the said order has been continued from time to time. He further submits that if the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30795 WP No. 3755 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

present petition is disposed of with a direction to the parties to maintain status quo until disposal of the suit, the purpose of the petition would be served.

¶29

Heard.

¶30

Submission taken on record.

¶31

Respondent though served is neither present nor represented.

¶32

Petitioner has filed the above suit in O.S.No.244/2016 seeking relief of permanent injunction against the respondent in respect of suit schedule `B’ property which according to her is being used as an access to the suit schedule A property which is situated on the southern side of the suit schedule B property. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff if the interim order of status quo granted earlier by this Court is continued/extended, no prejudice will be caused. On the other hand, the very purpose of filing the suit would be defeated. In that view of the matter, petition is disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to suit schedule B property till disposal of the said suit.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:30795 WP No. 3755 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36