Mr S Somashekar Vs Smt B K Sharada

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34521 MFA No. 2977 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2977 OF 2026 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. S. SOMASHEKAR S/O. G. SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.30, 8^TH CROSS SCT COLLEGE, VIGNANANAGAR NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI C.S.MADHU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. B.K. SHARADA WIFE SRI SELVAM.S. DAUGHTER OF LATE B.N. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9 NEAR KEB STATION BEHIND MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE, KACHAMARANAHALLI GUNJUR POST BENGALURU - 560 087.

¶14

SRI B.K. NAGESH SON OF LATE B. N. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. T.BHAGYAJYOTHI WIFE OF B. K.NAGESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34521 MFA No. 2977 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SMT. B.N. TEJASWINI DAUGHTER OF B.K. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶19

MR. B.N.VISHAL SON OF B.K. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶20

MR. B.N. CHANDAN SON OF B.K NAGESH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶21

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.83 NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE BYRASANDRA VILLAGE C.V. RAMAMNAGARA POST BENGALURU - 560 093.

¶22

SRI HARISH S/O. LATE RAINAIAH AND B.K. SHAMALA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶23

SMT. ASHA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AND B.K. SHAMALA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶24

SRI GANESH S/O. LATE RAMAIAH AND B.K. SHAMALA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶25

RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT PATEL BADAVANE NEAR PETROL BUNK KOTHANUR GATE BENGALURU - 560 077.

¶26

SMT. B.K. MANJULA

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34521 MFA No. 2977 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

WIFE OF LATE NAGARAJ DAUGHTER OF LATE B. N. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT GIRI NILAYA 1 CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA BENGALURU - 560 093.

¶30

SMT. B.K. SHAKUNTHALA WIFE OF SATISH G.K. DAUGHTER OF LATE B.N. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT KUMBARA BEEDHI, GUNJUR BENGALURU - 560 087.

¶31

MR. M. NAGARAJA SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 402 6^TH MAIN, G.M.PALYA BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.L.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI K. CHANDRAMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6; VIDE ORDER DATED 07.07.2026, NOTICE TO R7 TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH; R10 AND R11 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED; SRI KESHAVA K., ADVOCATE FOR R12)

¶33

THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.02.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.I IN OS.NO.25919/2025 BY LXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶34

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:34521 MFA No. 2977 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

This appeal is preferred by appellant–defendant No.11 challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.SNo.1220/2011 by LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. By the said order, the trial Court allowed the application filed by respondent No.1–plaintiff and granted an order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 8, 11 and 12 from creating any charge or alienating the schedule properties in respect of item Nos.1 to 4 to any third person or persons till disposal of the suit.

¶41

It is the contention of learned counsel for appellant-defendant No.11 that the appellant is a builder and has purchased item No.1 of the suit schedule properties from respondent No.2-defendant No.1, after paying valuable consideration to respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein, under a registered sale deed dated 07.10.2020. It

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34521 MFA No. 2977 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

is further contended that, pursuant to the said sale deed, the khata has been transferred to the name of the appellant-defendant No.11, who has been regularly paying property taxes in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties.

¶45

2.1 It is further contended by learned counsel for appellant that the appellant-defendant No.11 was not heard by the trial Court, as he had been placed ex parte and consequently, had no opportunity to contest the matter. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶46

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and 12, who are the co-defendants before the trial Court, support the case of the appellant–defendant No.11.

¶47

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1–plaintiff vehemently opposes the appeal, contending that it is not maintainable, as the appellantdefendant No.11 did not contest the proceedings before

¶48

the trial Court on the application filed by the plaintiff under

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34521 MFA No. 2977 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Pursuant thereto, the appellant–defendant No.11 has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC before the trial Court, which is pending adjudication and is yet to be decided. It is, therefore, contended that the present appeal is not maintainable and that the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the said application expeditiously. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶52

Apparently, the fact that the appellant-defendant No.11 had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC is not in dispute. However, the said fact was not initially brought to the notice of this Court by the appellant. Once an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC has been filed before the trial Court, it would be appropriate for the appellant–defendant No.11, who had not contested I.A.No.1 before the trial Court, to pursue the said application by placing his objections to the grant of temporary injunction and seeking vacating of the interim order. If the trial Court does not accept his contentions

¶53

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:34521 MFA No. 2977 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

and passes an order adverse to him, it is always open to the appellant to challenge the said order before this Court in accordance with law. It would be a futile exercise for this Court to proceed further with the present appeal, particularly when the appellant–defendant No.11 has already filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC before the trial Court seeking to vacate the order of temporary injunction.

¶56

Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant-defendant No.11 ought to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to urge all his grounds before the trial Court. The application filed by the appellant-defendant No.11 seeking vacation or modification of the interim order granted by the trial Court shall be considered on its own merits and disposed off by the trial Court by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶57

8 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:34521 MFA No. 2977 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. This appeal is disposed off ;

¶63

ii. Liberty is reserved to the appellant-defendant No.11

¶64

to raise all the contentions and urge all the grounds that have been urged before this Court in support of his application seeking vacation of the order of temporary injunction granted under the impugned order;

¶65

iii. The trial Court is at liberty to consider and dispose off the said application on its own merits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶66

iv. It is needless mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter;

¶67

Ordered accordingly.

¶68

9 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:34521 MFA No. 2977 of 2026

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance.

¶72

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶73

CPN

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Mr S Somashekar v. Smt B K Sharada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr S Somashekar v. Smt B K Sharada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E S I Corporation Vs M/S Sree Dhanalakshmi Engineering

R. Narayan Prasad Vs B. B. Ramaswamy Gowda

Devaraj Vs Karnataka Pradesh Kurubara Sangha

Indiranagara Club Vs Mr. D P Narayan

The Union of India Vs Smt Sarojamma

Mrs N Manjula Vs the Deputy Commissioner