Mrs Noor Jehan Shaikh Vs Shri Shoukath Ali

W/O LATE SRI IBRAHIM ABDULLA SHAIKH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO. 202, B BLOCK, SOMERSET APARTMENT, MIDFORD GARDEN, NO. 18, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

¶12

SHABANA SHAIKH D/O LATE IBRAHIM ABDULL SHAIKH

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AR/A FLAT NO. 202, 'B' BLOCK, SOMERSET APARTMENT, MIDFORD GARDEN NO. 18, M.G. ROAD,

¶15

BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

RESHMA IBRAHIM SHAIKH D/O LATE IBRAHIM ABDULL SHAIKH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO. 72, 9 QUEENSLAND ROAD, LONDON N7-7FH

¶17

NAAZMA SHAIKH D/O LATE IBRAHIM ABDULL SHAIKH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO. 1308, SE-36TH AVENUE, APARTMENT-F,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33156 WP No. 19803 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

PORTLAND, OR 97214 U.S.A.

¶21

SALMAN IBRAHIM SHAIKH S/O LATE IBRAHIM ABDULL SHAIKH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/A FLAT-72 9 QUEENSLAND ROAD, LONDON N77FH PETITIONER NO.2 TO 5 ARE REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER AND MOTHER SMT. NOOR JEHAN I. SHAIKH W/O LATE IBRAHIM ABDULL SHAIKH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AR/A FLAT NO. 202, 'B' BLOCK, SOMERSET APARTMENT, MIDFORD GARDEN NO. 18, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SHRI SHOUKATH ALI S/O ABDUL AMIN AGE MAJOR, R/A BANTWAL VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK MANGALURU DISTRICT-575 013

¶26

SRI. ZAMEER PASHA S/O SARDAR PASHA AGE MAJOR R/A-BANTWAL VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK MANGALURU DISTRICT-575 003

¶27

SRI. NIZAMUDDIN SO LATE BASHEER

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33156 WP No. 19803 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

AGE MAJOR R/A BANTWAL VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK MANGALURU DISTRICT-575 003

¶31

SRI. MOHAMMED HANIF S/O YUSUF AGE MAJOR R/A BANTWAL VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK MANGALURU DISTRICT-575 003

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 22/06/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHAPURA IN OS NO. 122/2036 VIDE ANNEXUREA PASSED IN RESPECT OF IA NO. 1 ORDERING ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS AND NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENTS CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW IA NO. 1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:33156 WP No. 19803 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The petitioners are before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.122/2026 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpura, wherein instead of deciding the application on its merits, the trial Court had issued suit summons to the defendants.

¶41

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Dhalitha Vividha Gramodyoga Kaigarika

¶42

Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSD , arising out of W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC) dated 09.12.2025 , whereby the Court had observed as follows:

¶43

"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.

¶44

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

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33156 WP No. 19803 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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."

¶50

In the light of the same, this Court is passing the

¶51

following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The order dated 22.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.122/2026 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpura, is set aside .

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:33156 WP No. 19803 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

ii. The trial Court shall decide I.A.No.1 on the merits of the case, irrespective of whether the suit summons are served on the defendants or not and shall pass orders in accordance with law within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶58

iii. The petitioners are at liberty to make a request for advance hearing of the case.

¶59

iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶60

v. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶61

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶62

MEG

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Mrs Noor Jehan Shaikh v. Shri Shoukath Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Noor Jehan Shaikh v. Shri Shoukath Ali

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

Parvathamma Vs Badegowda G M

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Smt. Kanthamma

Velankani Electronics Private Limited Vs Arrow Electronics Asia (S) Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Anand Vs Sri Chinnappa Reddy

Mrs. Safiya Vs Mr. K Shabir

M/S G G Finance Corporation Finance and Investment Vs v Thimma Reddy