Disposed¶45

Manjunath T v. Jayarama Reddy

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2026WP/14072/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 14072 of 2026 (GM-CPC); Lalitha Kanneganti J.; order dated 11.06.2026; Articles 226/227 writ against trial court issuing suit summons and emergent notice instead of deciding IA No.1 in O.S. No. 289/2026; interim status-quo order of coordinate bench dated 29.04.2026 declined to be continued owing to petitioner's conduct; trial court requested to consider pending IA within one week; all pending IAs closed; possession/injunction dispute over Allahalli village property; I Addl. Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of requesting the trial court to consider the pending IA within one week from receipt of copy of the order; status-quo order not continued; all pending I.As. in the petition stand closed. ¶45

Manjunath T Vs Jayarama Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28409 WP No. 14072 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 14072 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANJUNATH T., S/O THAMMANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT ALLAHALLI VILLAGE OPP TO ANJANEYA TEMPLE ANJANAPURA BANGALORE – 560 062

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SURESH K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

JAYARAMA REDDY S/O J SURENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

PRATAP S REDDY

¶16

S/O J SURENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶17

BOTH THE RESPONDENTS R/AT NO.88, ALLAHALLI, 9^TH PHASE JP NAGAR, ANJANAPURA POST BANGALORE – 560 108

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S. NO. 289/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28409 WP No. 14072 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ADDL. PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL AT BANGALORE.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed on IA.No.1 in OS.No.289/2026 dated 26.03.2026 by I

¶28

Addl. Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, whereby the trial court instead of considering IA No.1 has issued the suit summons and emergent notice, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the coordinate bench of this Court on 29.04.2026 had passed the

¶30

following order:

¶31

“Heard. Issue notice to the respondents. Parties are directed to maintain status-quo in respect to the suit's scheduled property till the next date of hearing.”

¶32

Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be taken up. Interim order is extended on 08.06.2026, 09.06.2026 and 10.06.2026.

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28409 WP No. 14072 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is in possession of the property and if the injunction is not granted, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioner. This court has indicated that as the suit summons are returnable by 11.06.2026 and as already the defendants have filed their objections, the matter will be remanded and the petitioner can argue the matter before the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner insists that order of status quo what is granted by the co-ordinate bench of this court on 29.04.2026 shall be continued.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has filed several documents which this court is not inclined to consider. However it is submitted that subsequent to the status-quo orders passed by this court the petitioner has painted the number of the writ petition in the said premises and inspite of an order of status-quo the petitioner has started interfering with the respondent's possession. According to the respondent, respondent is in possession of the property. When the petitioner is insisting for an interim order of status-quo, this court wanted to look at the affidavit that is filed along with IA,

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:28409 WP No. 14072 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

unfortunately petitioner has not even filed the IA before this court.

¶41

Considering the conduct of the petitioner after the

¶42

status-quo order passed by this court, this court is not inclined to continue the same. It is left to the trial court to consider the case on merits.

¶43

Accordingly, this court is passing the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The writ petition is disposed of requesting the trial court to consider the pending IA within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of

¶46

the order.

¶47

ii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Manjunath T v. Jayarama Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath T v. Jayarama Reddy

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

Sri. Muniraju Vs Smt. G a Sarvamangala

H.T Babu Vs Neravanda B Subbaiah Since Deceased by Lrs M N. Janaki

Trinetramilan Product Protection Solutions Private Limited Vs A.S. Narayanan

Sri N Gurumurthy Vs Athaulla Rehaman

Smt Priyadharhini Vs Sri Palani Armugam

Ms Umme Salma Vs Smt. Surbhi Agarwal