Sri. K.P. Murthy, Vs Sri. Ashwathappa

SRI. K.P. MURTHY, S/O. LATE G. PAPAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT KACHARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 084

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. ASHWATHAPPA, S/O. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.36, MYLAPPANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 089

¶15

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O. SRI. ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.36, MYLAPPANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 089

¶16

SRI. PRAKASH A., S/O. SRI. ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34837 WP No. 13287 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

RESIDING AT NO.36, MYLAPPANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 089

¶20

SMT. ANITHA A., W/O. MUNIRAJA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, D/O. SRI. ASHWATHAPPA AND RESIDING AT MARENAHALLI, BAGALUR, BENGALURU - 562 149

¶21

SMT. NAGAVENI, D/O. SRI. ASHWATHAPPA AND W/O. BHAVAN YADAV, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 112, 3RD CROSS, SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE ROAD, DEVASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 036

¶22

SRI. B. VINAY KUMAR, S/O. B. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.514, VITHOLA APARTMENTS, KALENA AGRAHARA, NEAR MEENAKSHI TEMPLE, BANNERAGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶23

SRI. ARJUN M, S/O. C. MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.691/B, 22ND CROSS, 19TH MAIN, HSR CLUB ROAD, HSR LAYOUT 2^ND SECTOR, BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 102

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34837 WP No. 13287 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2026 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.8 THE HON'BLE VII ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS IT REJECTS I.A. NO. II IN O.S. NO. 718/2026 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2026 in I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.718/202026 by VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

¶32

The plaintiff had filed two I.As. I.A.No.1 is not to alienate the property and I.A.No.2 is not to interfere with the peaceful personal enjoyment of the plaintiff’s possession. As far as I.A.No.1 is concerned, the trial Court has passed an order, and as far as I.A.No.2 is concerned, the trial Court has issued notice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff submits that when an IA is filed seeking

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:34837 WP No. 13287 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

injunction, if the petitioner is not entitled for injunction, the trial Court ought to have passed an order on the merits of it. But the trial Court cannot issue summons without passing any order on the application. He has relied on order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dhalitha Vividha GramodyogaKaigarikaSahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSD , arising out of W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC)dated 09.12.2025, whereby Co-

¶38

ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as follows:

¶39

"6. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondentdefendant for the reason that the petitioner is questioning the non-passing of the order on the application in IA.No.1, wherein the trial Court has neither passed any order for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction or for rejection of the same.

¶40

7. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff along with the plaint seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, it becomes the duty and obligation of the trial Court to consider the same and pass suitable orders either granting or rejecting the ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. This Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr.Shashidhara A.V. in WP.No.33725/2025 [Decided on 17.11.2025] has made certain observations and guidelines as to how the trial Court has to deal with an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It is

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34837 WP No. 13287 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

not optional for the trial Court to merely issue notice to the defendant before passing an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendant.

¶44

8. The trial Court will also have to consider judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993)3 SCC 161, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶45

9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that notice is yet to be served on the defendant. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the trial Court to decide the application either granting or rejecting an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction by providing proper reasons."

¶46

In the light of the order referred to Supra, this Court

¶47

deems it appropriate to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to consider I.A.No.2 in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, notwithstanding the fact that the suit

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34837 WP No. 13287 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

summons are not served on the defendants.

¶53

Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶55

PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Sri. K.P. Murthy, v. Sri. Ashwathappa

Case brief

What is this about?

Sri. K.P. Murthy, v. Sri. Ashwathappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Ramachandra Vs Sri Madhu Sudan Reddy

Sampath Deceased by His Lr S Vs Sri. Jayaram

Mallesha Vs G H Kalashetty

M/S. Private Eye Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Sangeetha Mobiles

Sri. a. Somashaker Vs Smt. Chaya

M/S. J. K. Ventures Vs Sri. Kalikiri Subramanyam @ Subramanyam