Smt. Lokadevi v. Smt. Honamma Alias Hannamma

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2026WP/19516/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex parte temporary injunction refused; Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC; Article 227 writ petition; specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17.12.2016; interim order dated 28.09.2022 restraining alienation of suit schedule property continued; Trial Court directed to hear parties before deciding I.A.No.1; respondents served and unrepresented; O.S.No.1425/2022 (narrative: O.S.No.1424/2022); I Additional Senior Civil Judge Bengaluru Rural; W.P. No.19516/2022 (GM-CPC); Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil; decided 23.04.2026; Karnataka HC Bengaluru.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Trial Court directed to consider I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC after hearing the parties to the suit; interim restraint dated 28.09.2022 on alienation of the suit schedule property continued until such consideration; no order as to costs.

Smt. Lokadevi Vs Smt. Honamma Alias Hannamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 04.07.2022 declining ex parte temporary injunction on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 called for interference under Article 227, and whether the Trial Court should be directed to consider I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC after hearing the parties to the suit.

¶¶30

Court's answer

Interest of justice would be met if the interim order granted by this Court on 28.09.2022 restraining alienation remains in force till the Trial Court considers the petitioner's application in I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

¶¶44-45

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court is directed to consider I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC after hearing the parties to the suit.

¶¶52

Key takeaways

Until the Trial Court considers I.A.No.1, the interim order granted by this Court dated 28.09.2022 shall remain in force.ratio¶¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), 23.04.2026 — W.P. No.19516/2022 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner-plaintiff, who had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 17.12.2016 (prayer cites O.S.No.1425/2022; judgment narrative cites O.S.No.1424/2022) before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, challenged the Trial Court's order dated 04.07.2022 on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 whereby her application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for ex parte temporary injunction was not granted and emergent notice was ordered instead. Respondents R1-R4 were served and unrepresented. Holding that interest of justice would be met if this Court's interim order dated 28.09.2022 restraining alienation of the suit schedule property continued in operation, the Court allowed the writ petition, directed the Trial Court to consider I.A.No.1 after hearing the parties to the suit, and continued the interim restraint until such consideration. No order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22331 W.P. No.19516/2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.19516/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SMT. LOKADEVI W/O SRI. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE SOOLIKERE POST YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI BENGALURU-560060. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V. ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. HONAMMA ALIAS HANNAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH @ CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH @ VENKATANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶13

SRI. MANJUNATH .V S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH @ CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH @ VENKATANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶14

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH @ CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH @ VENKATANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:22331 W.P. No.19516/2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT. MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE SOOLIKERE POST YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI BENGALURU-560060.

¶19

SRI. MANJUNATH M.V. S/O VENKATARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE SOOLIKERE POST YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI BENGALURU-560060.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(R1 TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.4.7.2022 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SR. CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL IN O.S.NO.1425/2022 ON IA NO.1 AND 2 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO NON-GRANTING OF EXPARTE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-Q. ALLOW THE APPLICATION BEARING IA NO.1 AND IA NO.2 DTD.30.6.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.1425/2022 1ST ADDITIONAL SR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND C AND THEREBY GRANT AN EX-PARTE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS TO HIS AGENTS OR ANY PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER OR THROUGH HIM FROM ALIENATING OR ENCUMBERING OR CREATING ANY CHARGE OF WHATSOEVER NATURE OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT FROM CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY PENDING DISPSOAL OF THE PRESENT SUIT BEARING O.S.NO.1425/2022 FILED BEFORE 1ST ADDITIONAL SR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL & ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:22331 W.P. No.19516/2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.07.2022 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1424/2022 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶31

Though notice is served on the respondents,

¶32

there is no representation.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the

¶35

non-consideration of I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') seeking an ex parte temporary injunction. The Trial Court, under the impugned order dated 04.07.2022 issued emergent notice on I.A.No.1 and the suit summons to the defendants. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:22331 W.P. No.19516/2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

of the agreement of sale dated 17.12.2016 and for other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, came to be filed and the plaintiff sought for the consideration of said application ex parte . However, the Trial Court declined to

¶40

grant ex parte temporary injunction. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has filed the present petition. This Court, on 28.09.2022 has passed the following order:

¶41

"Issue notice to the respondents.

¶42

Till the next date of hearing, the respondents are restrained from alienating in any portion of the suit schedule property List on 19.10.2022."

¶43

It is to be noticed that the said order is in force

¶44

till this day and the respondents have not appeared. In my considered view, interest of justice would be met if the aforesaid interim order granted by this Court remains in

¶45

force till the Trial Court considers the petitioner's application in I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:22331 W.P. No.19516/2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶52

(ii) The Trial Court is directed to consider I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, after hearing the parties to the suit.

¶53

(iii) Until such consideration, the interim order granted by this Court dated 28.09.2022 shall remain in force.

¶54

No order as to costs.

¶55

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Smt. Lokadevi v. Smt. Honamma Alias Hannamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lokadevi v. Smt. Honamma Alias Hannamma

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

M/S. Green Fortune Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri. Naveen Hegde

Sameer Shariff Vs State by K.G. Hally P.S.

Sri H G Basavanagowda Vs Sri B S Manjunatha Shetty

M/S. Healthfab Private Limited Vs M/S. Yashram Lifestyle Brands Private Limited

Sri Allamaprabhu Yaravintelimath Vs M/S Dreamz Infra India Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Haseena Begaum Vs Smt. G Shahataj Begaum