Sri. Ramaiah v. Sri Puttanna

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2026WP/15563/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 Constitution of India; writ petition GM-CPC; Karnataka High Court; police protection for enforcement of temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rule 2A Code of Civil Procedure 1908; O.S. No.257/2022 Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Doddaballapura; injunction unchallenged by petitioner-defendant; stay of suit dated 19.01.2024 post-dating protection order dated 15.12.2023; writ petition not entertained and disposed of; liberty to pursue remedy on subsequent developments.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition is not entertained and is disposed of, with the petitioner free to avail the benefit/remedy on subsequent developments. ¶¶36

Sri. Ramaiah Vs Sri Puttanna — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition is not entertained and is disposed of, with the petitioner free to avail the benefit/remedy on subsequent developments.

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order dated 15.12.2023 granting police protection for enforcement of the temporary injunction in O.S. No.257/2022 should be quashed under Article 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

With the above observations, the writ petition is not entertained and is accordingly disposed of.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The Court proceeded on the position that it was not in dispute that the order of injunction has not been challenged by the petitioner.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

Since the order staying the suit (19.01.2024) post-dates the order granting police protection (15.12.2023), the writ petition, at this length of time, serves no useful purpose; the petitioner can avail the benefit/remedy on subsequent developments.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (K. V. Aravind, J.), WP No. 15563 of 2025 (GM-CPC), decided 24.03.2026: Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India sought quashing of the order dated 15.12.2023 of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura in O.S. No.257/2022 (Annexure-E), whereby police protection was granted for enforcement of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering with the plaintiffs-respondents' peaceful possession of the suit schedule property; the trial Court had held that Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not bar grant of police protection for implementation of its orders. The Court found it not in dispute that the petitioner never challenged the order of injunction, and that the order staying the suit (19.01.2024) post-dated the police protection order (15.12.2023); consequently the writ petition, at this length of time, served no useful purpose. The petition was not entertained and was disposed of, the petitioner being free to avail the benefit/remedy on subsequent developments. No precedent cases were cited or engaged with.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:16467 WP No. 15563 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 15563 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RAMAIAH, S/O VENKATASHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SRIHARI R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI PUTTANNA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶15

SRI MUNIRAJU, S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶16

RESPONDENTS 1 AND 1 RESIDENTS OF GOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16467 WP No. 15563 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DODDABALLAPURA IN O.S. No.257/22 ANNEXURE-E.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard Sri Srihari R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

The present writ petition challenges the order dated 15.12.2023 passed on I.A. in O.S. No.257/2022 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura [trial Court], whereby police protection has been ordered for enforcement of the order of temporary injunction against the defendant-petitioner, restraining him from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs-respondents over the suit schedule property.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very same property is the subject matter of another comprehensive suit. It is further submitted that the further proceedings in

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16467 WP No. 15563 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

O.S.No.257/2022 has been stayed in subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the grant of police protection for enforcement of an order which has already been stayed is erroneous. It is submitted that the trial Court had granted an order of injunction, and alleging its disobedience, the plaintiffs therein filed an application seeking police protection.

¶29

The trial Court, by order dated 15.12.2023, allowed the said application. The trial Court further held that the remedy available under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not bar it from granting police protection for implementation of its orders. It is thus submitted that police protection has been extended.

¶30

The grievance raised in the petition is that the order of injunction has been stayed in subsequent proceedings. It is submitted that further proceedings in O.S. No.257/2022 have also been stayed. It is, however, not in dispute that the order of injunction has not been challenged by the petitioner. The order staying the suit is dated 19.01.2024, whereas the order granting police protection is dated 15.12.2023. In the circumstances, the present writ petition, at this length of time,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:16467 WP No. 15563 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

serves no useful purpose. However, the petitioner can avail the

¶35

benefit/remedy on subsequent developments.

¶36