Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt. Parimala P Joshi Vs Sri. a R Nazeer Ahmed — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Smt. Parimala P Joshi Vs Sri. a R Nazeer AhmedSmt. Parimala P Joshi v. Sri. a R Nazeer Ahmed

Dismissed¶107

Smt. Parimala P Joshi v. Sri. a R Nazeer Ahmed

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2026MFA/6577/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC-KAR; neutral citation NC: 2026:KHC:30945; MFA No. 962 of 2016 (CPC) c/w MFA Nos. 5318, 6576, 6577 and 7216 of 2016; appeals under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against rejection/dismissal of temporary injunction applications under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Sec.151 CPC (Order 39 Rule 4 application allowed in O.S. Nos. 3013/15 and 2260/15); suits O.S. Nos. 2325/2015, 2154/2015, 3013/15, 2260/15, 2413/15; suits disposed of on 20.02.2023; all five appeals dismissed as infructuous; observation on counsel's duty to inform the Court; appellants Singamaneni Chalapathy, Sadananda Hegde, H.N. Vidyashankar, Parimala P. Joshi, N.G. Srilakshmi; respondents A.R. Nazeer Ahmed and M/s Nanjundeshwara Developers (R.V. Subramanya); counsel Preethi Kumar/Abhinav R. and M.S. Varadarajan; Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur; decided 22.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Taking note of learned counsel's submission that the original suits were disposed of on 20.02.2023, the Court dismissed all five miscellaneous first appeals.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of the Bengaluru City Civil Courts rejecting/dismissing the appellants' temporary injunction applications under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Sec.151 CPC in the five underlying suits called for interference in these appeals. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of learned counsel's submission that the original suits were disposed of on 20.02.2023, the Court dismissed all five miscellaneous first appeals.

Key takeaways

The appeals were dismissed specifically on the ground that they had become infructuous following disposal of the original suits; no ruling was made on the merits of the injunction applications.ratio¶109
Obiter observation: learned counsel, being responsible officers of the Court and part of the judicial system, owe a duty and responsibility to inform the Court at the earliest time of such developments, to avoid inconvenience and unnecessary expenditure to the State exchequer.obiter¶103

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru — Oral Judgment, 22.06.2026 (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.). Five Miscellaneous First Appeals under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC — MFA Nos. 962, 5318, 6576, 6577 and 7216 of 2016 — lay challenges to orders passed on applications under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Sec.151 CPC (with an Order 39 Rule 4 application allowed in two of the suits) in O.S. Nos. 2325/2015, 2154/2015, 3013/15, 2260/15 and 2413/15 of various Bengaluru City Civil Courts. When the appeals came up for orders, counsel for the appellants submitted that the original suits had been disposed of on 20.02.2023. Observing that learned counsel, as responsible officers of the Court, owe a duty to inform the Court of such developments at the earliest to save the State exchequer needless expense, the Court dismissed all five appeals as having become infructuous. No substantive ruling was made on the merits of the injunction applications.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2016 (CPC) C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5318 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6576 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6577 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7216 OF 2016

IN MFA No. 962/2016

BETWEEN:

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

SRI. SINGAMANENI CHALAPATHY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O. SRI. S. CHANDRAPPA, NO.B-004, ADARSH RHYTHAM APARTMENTS, NO.71, PANDURANGA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 076.

(BY MRS. PREETHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

…APPELLANT

AND:

SRI. A. R. NAZEER AHMED

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. A.N. BASHA, NO.88A, GRIHALAKSHMI EXTENSION,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079.

M/S. NANJUNDESHWARA DEVELOPERS

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.659, 2^ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085,

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. R.V. SUBRAMANYA.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 30.11.2015 PASSED ON IA NO.I IN O.S NO.2325/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

IN MFA NO. 5318/2016

BETWEEN:

SRI SADANANDA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI.NARAYANA HEGDE, NO.60, 1ST MAIN, IDEAD HOMES,

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

...APPELLANT

(BY MRS. PREETHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI A. R. NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O A.N.BHASHA, NO.88A, GRIHALAKSHMI EXTENSION, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079.

M/S NANJUNDESHWARA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.659, 2^ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.R.V.SUBRAMANYA

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M S VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2016 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO. 2154/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (C.C.H.16), DISMISSING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 CPC.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

IN MFA NO. 6576/2016

BETWEEN:

SRI H. N. VIDYASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O SRI.H.K.NANJUNDA SWAMY NO.3994/F, 17^TH 'D' CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070.

...APPELLANT

(BY MRS. PREETHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI A. R. NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O A.N. BHASHA, NO.88A, GRIHALAKSHMI EXTENSION, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079.

M/S. NANJUNDESHWARA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.659, 2^ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.R.V. SUBRAMANYA

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 01.07.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.1 & IA NO.4 IN O.S.NO.3013/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1&2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, ALLOWING IA NO.4 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

IN MFA NO. 6577/2016

BETWEEN:

SMT. PARIMALA P. JOSHI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O SRI PRAMOD N. JOSHI R/O NO.206B-25, RICHGROVE DRIVE, TORONTO M9R OA3, CANADA REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.VAMAN B PATIL

...APPELLANT

(BY MRS. PREETHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI A. R. NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O A.N.BASHA

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

NO.88A, GRIHALAKSHMI EXTENSION, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079

M/S NANJUNDESHWARA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.659, 2^ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.R.V.SUBRAMANYA

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.1 & IA NO.4 IN O.S.NO.2260/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1&2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, ALLOWING IA NO.4 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

IN MFA NO. 7216/2016

BETWEEN:

SMT N. G. SRILAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O SRI. A.N. NATARAJA, NO.1652, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, "A" BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE,

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

...APPELLANT

(BY MRS. PREETHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI A. R. NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O A.N. BASHA, NO.88A, GRIHALAKSHMI EXTENSION, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079.

M/S NANJUNDESHWARA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.659, 2^ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085, REPARESENTD BY ITS MANAGING PAWRTNER SRI.R.V. SUBRAMANYA

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 14.01.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN OS.NO.2413/15 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1&2 OF CPC.

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellants is present.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

the original suit before the trial Court was disposed of on 20.02.2023. This Court fails to understand why this was not informed to the Court. Learned counsels are responsible officers of the Court in the process of administration of justice and part of the judicial system and they owe a duty and responsibility to inform the Court at the earliest time to avoid any inconvenience and unnecessary expenditures to the state exchequer.

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

9 -

HC-KAR

Nevertheless, the appeals are dismissed , taking note of

the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, as

having become infructuous.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the orders of the Bengaluru City Civil Courts rejecting/dismissing the appellants' temporary injunction applications under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Sec.151 CPC in the five underlying suits called for interference in these appeals.medium confidence¶28
2.
Whether, in view of counsel's submission that the original suits were disposed of on 20.02.2023, the pending appeals remained live and required further adjudication.medium confidence¶103
The court held
Taking note of learned counsel's submission that the original suits were disposed of on 20.02.2023, the Court dismissed all five miscellaneous first appeals.ratio¶107

Statutes considered

9 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order 43 Rule 1(r)¶28 Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151¶28 Order 43 Rule 1(r)¶46 Order 39 Rule 1 and 2¶46 Order 43 Rule 1(r)¶63 Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151¶63 Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151¶63 Order 43 Rule 1(r)¶79 Order 39 Rule 1 and 2¶94

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 30.11.2015 passed on IA No.1 in O.S. No.2325/2015 rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Sec.151 CPC — order under challenge in the lead appeal, MFA No. 962/2016; parallel interim orders challenged in the four connected MFAs are recorded in prior_proceedings.¶28
XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City · 30.11.2015
Prior proceeding
Connected appeal MFA No. 5318/2016 filed against order dated 16.01.2016 on I.A. No.1 in O.S.No. 2154/2015 (XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, C.C.H.16) dismissing I.A. No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.¶46
Prior proceeding
Connected appeal MFA No. 6576/2016 filed against orders dated 01.07.2016 on IA No.1 & IA No.4 in O.S.No.3013/15 (14th Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru), whereby IA No.1 (temporary injunction) was dismissed and IA No.4 (under Order 39 Rule 4) was allowed.¶63
Prior proceeding
Connected appeal MFA No. 6577/2016 filed against orders dated 01.07.2016 on IA No.1 & IA No.4 in O.S.No.2260/15 (14th Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru), whereby IA No.1 was dismissed and IA No.4 was allowed.¶79
Prior proceeding
Connected appeal MFA No. 7216/2016 filed against order dated 14.01.2016 on IA No.1 in OS.No.2413/15 (XLIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) dismissing IA No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC.¶94
Prior proceeding
When the appeals came up for orders, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the original suits before the trial Court stood disposed of on 20.02.2023, rendering the appeals infructuous.¶103

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Sri. Singamaneni Chalapathy¶12
Mrs. Preethi Kumar, Sri. Abhinav R.
appellant
Sri Sadananda Hegde¶31
Mrs. Preethi Kumar, Sri. Abhinav R.
appellant
Sri H. N. Vidyashankar¶52
Mrs. Preethi Kumar, Sri. Abhinav R.
appellant
Smt. Parimala P. Joshi (represented by her General Power of Attorney holder, Sri. Vaman B Patil)¶66
Mrs. Preethi Kumar, Sri. Abhinav R.
appellant
Smt N. G. Srilakshmi¶82
Mrs. Preethi Kumar, Sri. Abhinav R.
respondent
Sri. A. R. Nazeer Ahmed¶17
Sri. M.S. Varadarajan
respondent
M/s. Nanjundeshwara Developers (a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner, Sri. R.V. Subramanya)¶23
Sri. M.S. Varadarajan

Coram

AI extract

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerurauthor¶99

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 22 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 20 Sept 2016
Case no.: MFA/6577/2016
CNR: KAHC010402862016
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: MFA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Pradeep Singh Yerur

M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs B. G. Arunkumar
19 Jun 2026
Sri P a Manjunath Vs Mamatha
19 Jun 2026
Mr. B Madhava Suvarna Vs Temple Managing Committee
19 Jun 2026
M/S Brigade Enterprises Limited Vs Manjula H
22 Jun 2026
Smt N G Srilakshmi Vs Sri a R Nazeer Ahmed
22 Jun 2026
Sri Sadananda Hegde Vs Sri a R Nazeer Ahmed
22 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt. Parimala P Joshi v. Sri. a R Nazeer Ahmed, MFA/6577/2016 (KA), decided on 22 June 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes9

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order 43 Rule 1(r) · Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 · Order 43 Rule 1(r) · Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 · Order 43 Rule 1(r) · Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 · Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 · Order 43 Rule 1(r) · Order 39 Rule 1 and 2

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Order dated 30.11.2015 passed on IA No.1 in O.S. No.2325/2015 rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Sec.151 CPC — order under challenge in the lead appeal, MFA No. 962/2016; parallel interim orders challenged in the four connected MFAs are recorded in prior_proceedings.XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City · 30.11.2015
Connected appeal MFA No. 5318/2016 filed against order dated 16.01.2016 on I.A. No.1 in O.S.No. 2154/2015 (XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, C.C.H.16) dismissing I.A. No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
Connected appeal MFA No. 6576/2016 filed against orders dated 01.07.2016 on IA No.1 & IA No.4 in O.S.No.3013/15 (14th Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru), whereby IA No.1 (temporary injunction) was dismissed and IA No.4 (under Order 39 Rule 4) was allowed.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur

Parties & counsel