Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt. Shruti Babu Vs Sri. Kaleemulla — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Smt. Shruti Babu Vs Sri. KaleemullaSmt. Shruti Babu v. Sri. Kaleemulla

Disposed¶44

Smt. Shruti Babu v. Sri. Kaleemulla

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2026WP/19365/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Lalitha Kanneganti J.; WP No.19365 of 2026 (GM-CPC); Article 227 Constitution of India; writ of certiorari; ad-interim injunction application undecided; suit summons issued before injunction order; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; trial Court's duty to decide injunction application; Dhalitha Vividha GramodyogaKaigarikaSahakara Sanga Niyamitha v. Samatha Sainika Dal SSD; O.S.No.733 of 2026, Devanahalli; direction to decide I.A.Nos.1 and 2 within one week; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to consider I.A.Nos.1 and 2 (ad-interim injunction applications) within one week from receipt of a copy of the order, irrespective of service of summons on the defendants; petitioners permitted to apply for advancement of the matter; pending I.As, if any, in the writ petition closed.

Why is it important?

The trial Court shall consider I.A.Nos.1 and 2 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, notwithstanding the fact whether summons are served on the defendants or not. ¶42

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to consider I.A.Nos.1 and 2 (ad-interim injunction applications) within one week from receipt of a copy of the order, irrespective of service of summons on the defendants; petitioners permitted to apply for advancement of the matter; pending I.As, if any, in the writ petition closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court was obliged to consider and decide I.A.Nos.1 and 2 (applications for ad-interim injunction) on the merits instead of merely issuing suit summons to the defendants, and whether the writ Court should so direct.

Court's answer

The trial Court shall consider I.A.Nos.1 and 2 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, notwithstanding the fact whether summons are served on the defendants or not.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners can make an application to advance the matter before the trial Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Lalitha Kanneganti J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.733 of 2026, aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2026 of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby suit summons were issued to the defendants returnable by 29.08.2026 without passing any orders on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed seeking ad-interim injunction. Considering the co-ordinate Bench decision in Dhalitha Vividha GramodyogaKaigarikaSahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) v. Samatha Sainika Dal SSD, W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC) dated 09.12.2025, the Court directed the trial Court to consider I.A.Nos.1 and 2 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, notwithstanding whether summons are served on the defendants, permitted the petitioners to make an application to advance the matter, and closed pending I.As in the writ petition.

A

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:34045 WP No. 19365 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.19365 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHRUTI BABU, W/O SRI. BABU VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, SHUBH ENCLAVE, 1^ST MAIN, 'B' CROSS, HARLUR ROAD, AMBALIPURA, BENGALURU - 560 102.

SMT. SHASHIKALA PRAKASH, W/O LATE R.V.PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.428, RAILWAY LINE ROAD, NGEF LAYOUT, SADANANDA NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 038.

…PETITIONERS

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. ARVIND N., ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. MOHANKUMARA D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. KALEEMULLA, S/O LATE ABDUL RAZACK, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.8, KEMP ROAD, FRASER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005.

SRI. K.V. SHIBU, S/O SRI. K. VAMAN @ K. VAMANAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34045 WP No. 19365 of 2026

HC-KAR

R/AT NO.7, 14^TH MAIN, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT SEEKING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2026 PASSED ON I.A NO.1 BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, IN O.S NO.733 OF 2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, AND TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FROM INTERFERING WITH PETITIONERS PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2026, whereby the Court has issued suit summons to the defendants returnable by 29.08.2026 without passing any orders on IA.Nos.1 and 2 that is filed seeking adinterim injunction.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34045 WP No. 19365 of 2026

HC-KAR

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a fraud is played by the defendants and when an application is filed seeking ad-interim injunction, the Court ought to have considered the same on the merits of the matter without issuing suit summons to the defendants/respondents. He has relied on order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Dhalitha Vividha GramodyogaKaigarikaSahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSD , 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:

"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.

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

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34045 WP No. 19365 of 2026

HC-KAR

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.

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.

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."

Having heard the learned counsels one either side, perused the entire material on record. Considering the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC)dated 09.12.2025 this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following:

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34045 WP No. 19365 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) The trial Court shall consider I.A.Nos.1 and 2 within

a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order notwithstanding the fact whether summons are served on the defendants or not.

(ii) The petitioners can make an application to advance the matter.

(iii) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

(iv) Pending I.As if any, in the petition shall stand closed

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

PB

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the trial Court was obliged to consider and decide I.A.Nos.1 and 2 (applications for ad-interim injunction) on the merits instead of merely issuing suit summons to the defendants, and whether the writ Court should so direct.¶27
The court held
The trial Court shall consider I.A.Nos.1 and 2 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, notwithstanding the fact whether summons are served on the defendants or not.ratio¶42

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Dhalitha Vividha GramodyogaKaigarikaSahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSDRelied on¶36
W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC)dated 09.12.2025
Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr.Shashidhara A.V.Referred¶30
WP.No.33725/2025 [Decided on 17.11.2025]
Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and othersReferred¶34
(1993)3 SCC 161 · Who else cites this
Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and OthersReferred¶34
2025 SCC Online SC 1674 · Who else cites this
Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Smt.Rajul DeviReferred¶34
2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 · Who else cites this

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227¶21
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2¶30

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 18.06.2026 in O.S.No.733 of 2026 issuing suit summons to the defendants returnable by 29.08.2026 without passing any orders on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed seeking ad-interim injunction.¶24
III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli · 18.06.2026
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.733 of 2026 pending before the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli; petitioners filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 seeking ad-interim injunction; the trial Court issued suit summons returnable by 29.08.2026 without deciding the applications, prompting this writ petition under Article 227.¶24

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Smt. Shruti Babu¶8
Sri. Arvind N., Sri. Mohankumara D.
petitioner
Smt. Shashikala Prakash¶9
Sri. Arvind N., Sri. Mohankumara D.
respondent
Sri. Kaleemulla¶15
respondent
Sri. K.V. Shibu¶16

Coram

AI extract

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Lalitha Kannegantiauthor¶22

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 3 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 25 Jun 2026
Case no.: WP/19365/2026
CNR: KAHC010422892026
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: WP (GM-CPC)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Lalitha Kanneganti

Mrs. Safiya Vs Mr. K Shabir
2 Jul 2026
M/S G G Finance Corporation Finance and Investment Vs v Thimma Reddy
2 Jul 2026
Mr Abdul Jabbar Vs Smt Devarasam
2 Jul 2026
Sri Anand Vs Sri Chinnappa Reddy
3 Jul 2026
Smt Nagalakshmi @ Lakshmi Vs Sri K Nagendra Babu
3 Jul 2026
Dinesh @ Rama Dinesh Ramappa Vs Sadashiva
3 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt. Shruti Babu v. Sri. Kaleemulla, WP/19365/2026 (KA), decided on 3 July 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited5

Dhalitha Vividha GramodyogaKaigarikaSahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSDRelied on¶36
Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr.Shashidhara A.V.Referred¶30
Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and othersReferred¶34

View all cases cited

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Order dated 18.06.2026 in O.S.No.733 of 2026 issuing suit summons to the defendants returnable by 29.08.2026 without passing any orders on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed seeking ad-interim injunction.III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli · 18.06.2026
Suit O.S.No.733 of 2026 pending before the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli; petitioners filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 seeking ad-interim injunction; the trial Court issued suit summons returnable by 29.08.2026 without deciding the applications, prompting this writ petition under Article 227.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti

Parties & counsel