Jaya Pandey Vs R Lakhsmi

SUNIL KUMAR S, S/O R.SHANKARA PILLAI AGE 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, VAISHNAVAM, 3^RD CROSS, POOJA GARDEN LAYOUT, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, K CHANNASANDRA, HORAMAVU, BANGALORE -560 043

¶19

R. RADHAKRISHNA S/O RAMASWAMY, AGE 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.71/D, RAILWAY COLONY DIESEL LOCO SHED, KR PURAM, BANGALORE- 560 036

¶20

VIVEKANANDA J., S/O D.M.JAYARAMGOWDA AGE 47 YEARS, 98/3A, FIRST FLOOR NEAR SATHYA NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, NAGONDANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, CHANNASANDRA, KADUGODI POST BANGALORE – 560 067

¶21

FAKRUDDIN BABA SAHEB S/O K.FAKRUDDIN, AGE 52 YEARS, R/AT SECTION ENGINEER, NO.67/F, RAILWAY QUARTERS, DIESEL LOCO SHED, KR PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036

¶22

SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O PEDDA VENKARAMANAPPA, AGE 55 YEARS, RAILWAY QUARTERS, R/AT 67/H, KR PURAM BENGALURU-560 036

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31998 WP No. 15606 of 2026

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

MUTTURAJU S/O RAMADAS, AGE 46 YEARS, R/AT NO 73/F, RAILWAY COLONY, DIESEL LOCO SHED, KR PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036

¶26

N.SHWETHA REDDY W/O M.LAKSHMIPATHI REDDY, AGE 41 YEARS, R/AT QRTRS NO.80 C/D, YESHWANTHAPUR RLY QTRS, OPP. RAILWAY GROUND, YESHWANTHAPUR, BENGALURU-560 022

¶27

CH BUJJI BABU S/O CH KOTESWARA RAO, AGE 51 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.20/A, 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, CHITIYAPPA LINE, UDAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016

¶28

K K MOULIESWAR REDDY S/O K.MAHESWAR REDDY, AGE 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.12, VIJINAPURA, BENGALURU-560 016

¶29

K.VIJAY VARDHAN REDDY S/O K.L.NARAYANA REDDY, AGE 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, 2^ND CROSS, RR LAYOUT, VIJINAPUR, BENGALURU-560 016

¶30

MACHA SUBBAIAH S/O M SUBBARAYUDU, AGE 45 YEARS,

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31998 WP No. 15606 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

R/AT NO.1351, ARUN VILLA, SRI GANGA STREET, 6^TH CROSS, VIJINAPURA, BENGALURU-560 016

¶34

SHARMILA K., D/O B.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGE 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.45/A, 2^ND CROSS, RR LAYOUT, VIJINAPURA, BENGALURU-560 016

¶35

MANNAM RAMESH

¶36

S/O MANNAM KOTESWARA RAO, AGE 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.197, 4A CROSS, RR LAYOUT, VIJENAPURA BENGALURU-560 016

¶37

…PETITIONERS

¶38

(BY SRI. R.VYBHAV, ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

R LAKHSMI W/O GOVINDA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶41

R. GIRISH S/O RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶42

R. MOHAN S/O RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶43

THE RESPONDENT 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NADUVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, wwwHOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -560 067

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:31998 WP No. 15606 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

4. M.V VENKATESH

¶48

S/O M.T VENKATESH SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT GREEN CORNER HOUSE, SHANKAR DEEKSHITH COLONY, KADUGODI, BENGALURU 560 067

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.R.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 05.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A NO.1 AND ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 IN O.S NO. 5/2024 ON THE FILE OF ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, HOSAKOTE (ANNEXURE A).

¶52

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

¶53

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶54

ORAL ORDER

¶55

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 05.11.2024 in O.S.No.5/2024 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosakote, and the orders passed on I.A.Nos.1 to 3 in MA.No.13/2026 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosakote.

¶56

The respondent herein filed a suit, OS.No.5/2024, seeking permanent injunction in respect of Items 1 and 2. In

¶57

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:31998 WP No. 15606 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

that an application is filed seeking ad-interim injunction which was allowed by order dated 05.11.2024, whereby the trial court restrained the defendant from creating a charge over the suitscheduled property till further orders. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed MA.No.13/2026 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hoskote. In that, the petitioner has also filed I.A.No.1 to 3. The appellate court, by Order dated 02.05.2026, observed that, on the available documents, the appellants have not made out any prima facie case at this stage. Therefore, it is appropriate to hear the other side before passing any interim order as prayed for, and accordingly issued an emergent notice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/appellant is before this Court.

¶60

The petitioner has argued on the merits of the matter, submitting that the Trial Court has gone wrong in passing the order. It is submitted that when the petitioner approached the appellate court, the appellate court failed to consider IA Nos. 1 to 3 filed by him. He has relied on order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dhalitha Vividha Gramodyoga Kaigarika Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSD ,

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:31998 WP No. 15606 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

arising out of W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC)dated 09.12.2025, whereby Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as follows:

¶65

"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.

¶66

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

¶67

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

¶68

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:31998 WP No. 15606 of 2026

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

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.

¶71

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."

¶72

It is submitted that when an IA is filed seeking an interim

¶73

injunction, the trial court ought to have considered it on the merits of the matter without issuing summons to the other side.

¶74

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners remedy is not before this court. Further he has filed the MA with a delay and as such the trial court has issued summons and the petitioner can agitate the same before the appellate court.

¶75

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Considering the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶76

9 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:31998 WP No. 15606 of 2026

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC) dated 09.12.2025 this Court

¶80

deems it appropriate to pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

i. The Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosakote is requested to hear the IA Nos.1,2 & 3 filed in MA No.13/2026 and pass appropriate orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶83

ii. Without further notice, the parties shall appear

¶84

before the court on 06.07.2026 . Within one week from there, the court shall dispose of the case, and the respondents are permitted to file their objections.

¶85

iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶86

iv. All pending I.As., in this petition shall stand

¶87

closed.

¶88

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶89

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Jaya Pandey v. R Lakhsmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya Pandey v. R Lakhsmi

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

M/S. Fine Homes, Vs Mrs. Sayeeda Farhath

Sri Arvind Vishnu Acharya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M B Venugopal Vs Smt M B Rathnamma

N Chaithanya Vs Belimutta Swamigalu

Smt Roopa Suresh Vs Mr Suresh P

Sri T M Babu Vs Sri.T. Manjunatha