Disposed¶45

Sri. Yashwanth Kumar v. the Executive Officer

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2026WP/19338/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P. No.19338/2021 (GM-CPC), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 24-07-2026 by Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil. Article 227 writ petition; Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC / Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC temporary injunction; OS.No.231/2019 suit for permanent injunction; MA.No.04/2020 appeal dismissed; Civil Judge Belur; Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Belur; Executive Officer Taluk Panchayat Belur; status quo order dated 23.11.2021; eviction without due process impermissible; possession protected pending suit; petition disposed with status quo directions; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: trial Court directed to dispose of OS.No.231/2019 as early as possible, and parties directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit; no order as to costs. ¶45

Sri. Yashwanth Kumar Vs the Executive Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit schedule property is required to be protected during the pendency of OS.No.231/2019 by directing the parties to maintain status quo. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

The suit of the plaintiff is required to be decided on merits, and till the suit is decided, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is required to be protected.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

If status quo is not ordered during the pendency of the suit, the respondents will evict the petitioner without due process, which is impermissible and the suit would render infructuous.

¶43

Key takeaways

It is appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit, and the trial Court shall dispose of the suit in OS.No.231/2019 as early as possible.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India disposed of. Petitioner/plaintiff in OS.No.231/2019 (suit for permanent injunction against the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Belur) challenged the order dated 08.01.2020 on I.A.No.III (application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) of the Civil Judge, Belur, and the order dated 31.08.2021 in M.A.No.04/2020 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, whereby his temporary injunction application and appeal were dismissed. Noting this Court's earlier order dated 23.11.2021 directing maintenance of status quo after the defendant forcefully tried to evict him, the Court held that the suit must be decided on merits and the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property protected till then, since eviction without due process is impermissible and would render the suit infructuous. Parties directed to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit; trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously; no order as to costs.

¶1

HC-KAR

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:38329 W.P. No.19338/2021

¶3

¶4

CNR: KAHC010392342021

¶5

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

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.19338/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. YASHWANTH KUMAR S/O SRI. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT DEVANGA BEEDHI, BELUR HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. ARCHANA ANAND, ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT BELUR HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.

¶13

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. MANOJ M. NAIK, ADV., FOR

¶16

SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A, ADV.,)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 08.01.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN O.S.NO.231/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, BELUR VIDE ANNX-E AND ORDER DTD 31.08.2021 PASSED IN M.A.NO.04/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELUR VIDE ANNX-K, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION IA NO.III FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.231/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELUR & ETC.

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:38329 W.P. No.19338/2021

¶21

CNR: KAHC010392342021

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.01.2020 passed in on IA.No.3 in OS.No.231/2019 by the Civil Judge, Belur (for short ‘the trial Court’) and order dated 31.08.2021 passed in MA.No.4/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur (for short ‘the Appellate Court).

¶26

Heard Smt.Archana Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Manoj M. Naik, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Nagarajappa A., learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶27

The petitioner filed OS.No.231/2019 against the defendant - Taluk Panchayath seeking the relief of

¶28

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:38329 W.P. No.19338/2021

¶31

CNR: KAHC010392342021

¶32

permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial Court, considering the urgency pleaded, granted temporary injunction. Later, the said application for temporary injunction came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal in MA.No.4/2020., which also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court.

¶33

It is required to be noticed that the petitioner/plaintiff is contending that he is a tenant under the respondent by virtue of a registered lease deed dated 16.01.2014 and that he has been regularly paying the rent. It is submitted that the said rent was enhanced, which is being paid and the defendant accepted the said

¶34

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:38329 W.P. No.19338/2021

¶37

CNR: KAHC010392342021

¶38

rent. Despite accepting the rent, without any authority and due process, the defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule shop, where the plaintiff is carrying on his business.

¶39

It is further required to be noticed that with the aforesaid assertion, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court refused to protect the possession of the plaintiff during the pendency of suit. However, it is also required to be noticed that this Court, vide order dated 23.11.2021 has recorded the reason that the defendant taking law into its own hands, forcefully tried to evict the petitioner from the suit schedule property, therefore, directed the parties to maintain status quo and the said order is in force till date. In my considered view, the suit of the plaintiff is required to be decided on merits and till the suit is decided, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is required to be protected. If status quo is not ordered

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:38329 W.P. No.19338/2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

CNR: KAHC010392342021

¶43

during the pendency of the suit, then the respondents will evict the petitioner without due process, which is impermissible and suit would render infructuous. Hence, it would be appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The writ petition is disposed of .

¶46

ii. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit in OS.No.231/2019 as early as possible and till the disposal of the suit, the parties are directed to maintain status

¶47

quo with regard to the suit schedule property.

¶48

No order as to costs.

¶49

ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

¶50

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

Sri. Yashwanth Kumar v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Yashwanth Kumar v. the Executive Officer

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

Channabasappa. H Vs Managing Director

Channabasappa H Vs the State of Karnataka

G v Sarvamangalamma Vs G. Veeranna

Smt Farida Bi Vs Smt Norambi

Gautam Ghosh Vs Jayaraj Shetty

Smt. Farida Bi Vs Smt. Noorambi