Smt B K Ashwathamma Vs Sri Chandrashekaraiah

SMT B.K.ASHWATHAMMA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 207, F2, KHB HIGH RISE APARTMENT, A SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 382, MARASANDRA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 02.05.2026 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:26242 WP No. 14969 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

278/2026 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A BY MEANS OF WHICH THE INTERIM ORDER DATED: 18.03.2026 IS NOT EXTENDED AND EXTENDED THE INTERIM ORDER DATED: 18.03.2026.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in O.S.No.278/2026 dated 02.05.2026 by the I Addl. Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court has failed to extend the interim injunction that is granted directing the matter to be listed on 01.06.2026, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

2. This writ petition is filed during the summer vacation. The trial court, while passing the order, has observed that on perusal of the notice, it appears that O.S.No.582/2025 and also perusal of the copy of the documents it appears that plaintiff has not mentioned the case number in the copy of the plaint and it is observed that the counsel for the plaintiff prays time to file objection. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff is present and

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26242 WP No. 14969 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

files application under Section 151 of CPC for extension of the Temporary Injunction which was rejected.

¶31

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a typographical mistake, where the number of the case and the Court name were not properly mentioned and according to the petitioner, this is a typographical mistake. It is submitted that the matter is coming up before the Trial Court, if the earlier interim injunction order is extended, as the petitioner is having the benefit of the same, as the same was granted during the vacation by this Court, as the defendants are filing their written statement, the parties can go ahead with the matter before the trial Court.

¶32

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ defendants submits that petitioner intentionally has served a copy which do not disclose the year and number of the suit and also the name of the designated Court and the Court hall. It is submitted that this has been done only with an intention to cause inconvenience to the defendants, so that they will not be able to know which case and where the matter is pending. The trial court has rightly not extended the injunction, as there is

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26242 WP No. 14969 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

no compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) and (b) of the CPC. It is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by trial court. It is submitted that they have also filed an I.A not to extend the interim order and no objections are filed for the same.

¶36

5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on the record. When the interim injunction is granted and the trial court has directed the plaintiff to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) and (b) of CPC, the plaintiff ought to have complied with the same. It is the submission that, it is only the Court name and the case number that are not properly mentioned and it is a typographical mistake. When a notice is issued to the party without mentioning the Court name, case number, and the respective designated Court hall, the plaintiff cannot expect the defendant to come to the Court to file his written statement and other objections. The plaintiff ought to have complied with the provision and ought to have been more careful in serving the documents which do not contain the particular details. The

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26242 WP No. 14969 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

petitioner has approached this Court and a co-ordinate bench of this court had granted an order of status quo .

¶40

6. Considering the fact that during the vacation, petitioner is enjoying an order of status quo , at this point of time this Court is not inclined to go into the aspect of whether the petitioner is entitled for extension of the interim order or not. Considering the fact that, the matter is listed before the trial Court on 12.06.2026, this court is passing the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. There shall be an order of status quo till further orders are passed by the trial Court.

¶43

ii. The plaintiff shall file objections to the I.A filed by the defendant by the next date of hearing. The defendant shall also file the written statement before the said date.

¶44

iii. The trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶45

iv. This court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter, hence, none of the observations made by this court shall be

¶46