Sri Pillappa Vs Sri K Muniraju

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29987 WP No. 15484 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15484 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PILLAPPA SON OF LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NERIGE VILLAGE, KUGUR POST, SARAJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, PINCODE - 562 125

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI K MUNIRAJU SON OF LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.342, 3^RD CROSS, NEAR DHARMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE, RAMAGONANAHALLI, WHITEFIELD POST, BENGALURU PINCODE - 56066

¶14

SMT .G.A.CHANDRAKALA, WIFE OF A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRINILAYA, OPP. GOVT HOSPITAL ROAD, VARTHUR, BENGALURU, PINCODE - 560 087

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:29987 WP No. 15484 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SMT.RAMAKKA,

¶19

WIFE OF RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATHRIGUPPE VILLAGE, SARAJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, PINCODE - 562 125

¶20

SMT.LEELAVATHI, DAUGHTER OF RAMAKKA, WIFE OF ANAND, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATHRIGUPPE VILLAGE, SARAJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, PINCODE: 562 125

¶21

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA, DAUGHTER OF RAMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATHRIGUPPE VILLAGE, SARAJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, PINCODE: 562125

¶22

SRI.MUNIYAPPA @ NARASIMAHAIAH @ MUNIRAJU, SON OF LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NERIGE VILLAGE, KUGUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, PINCODE: 562 125

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29987 WP No. 15484 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO-A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2026 IN O.S.NO.691/2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL TO THE EXTENT OF REFUSING TO GRANT OF EXPARTE INTERIM ORDER AND THEREBY TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.1 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.691/2026 AS PER ANNEXUREC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court questioning the order passed on IA No.I in O.S.No.691/2026 dated 02.05.2026 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, whereby the Trial Court without considering IA No.I filed by the plaintiff seeking an ad interim injunction, has issued summons to the defendants, returnable by 01.09.2026.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits the when an application seeking ad interim injunction is filed, the Trial Court ought to have passed an order. Whether the petitioner is entitled for injunction or not some order or the other ought to have been passed and the petitioner would have

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:29987 WP No. 15484 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

got an opportunity to question the same, but, without doing so, the summons are issued.

¶36

In this regard, reliance is placed on the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dhalitha Vividha Gramodyoga Kaigarika Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSD , arising out of W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC) dated 09.12.2025, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as follows:

¶37

"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.

¶38

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]

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29987 WP No. 15484 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

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."

¶44

Considering the submissions made by the learned

¶45

counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC) referred supra, this matter is

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:29987 WP No. 15484 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

remanded back to Trial Court directing the Trial Court to consider I.A.No.I filed by the petitioner on the merits of it within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶50

In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the

¶51

following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. Accordingly, the order passed in IA No.I in O.S.No.691/2026 dated 02.05.2026 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court.

¶54

ii. The Trial Court shall consider I.A. No.I filed by the petitioner on its merits, in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶55

iii. Petitioner is at liberty to advance the summons before the Trial Court.

¶56

iv. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶58

SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri Pillappa v. Sri K Muniraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pillappa v. Sri K Muniraju

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

Smt. Shivamma Vs R.C. Srinivasamurthy

B Narakesari Vs N S Nataraju

Smt. Bibi Sabira Vs H C Basavaraju

Shri Varun Gupta Vs Smt Malika Dewan

Mr Satyateja M Vs Pradeep Jadhav v

Sir M Visvesvaraya Co. Op Bank Vs Smt. Sujatha