M/S. J. K. Ventures Vs Sri. Kalikiri Subramanyam @ Subramanyam

M/S. J. K. VENTURES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1680/55, J. KRISHNA NILAYA, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, 6^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, BSK 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU 560 050 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. K.G.KRISHNA

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.S.HEMANTH BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. KALIKIRI SUBRAMANYAM @ SUBRAMANYAM S/O. K.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15, 2^ND CROSS, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, UDAY NAGAR, CHIKKALASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 061

¶16

SRI. S.M. ANIL S/O. C. MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34753 WP No. 20835 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

RESIDING AT NO.15, SAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, MUTHANALLUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU -562 125

¶20

THE SUB-REGISTRAR, SHIVAJINAGAR (INDIRANAGAR), BENGALURU - 560 038

¶21

THE SUB-REGISTRAR, BASAVANAGUDI (ANEKAL), ANEKAL 562 106

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.MOHANA C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 SRI.SANJAY YADAV B., AGA FOR R3 & R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/07/2026 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL IN O.S. NO.881/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A (PASSED ON MEMO DATED 06/07/2026 ANNEXURE-G).

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:34753 WP No. 20835 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2026 passed in O.S.No.881/2026 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, where an application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was not considered by the trial Court, defendant No.2 is before this Court. However, the trial Court had heard the arguments of the parties on I.A. filed seeking interim injunction.

¶32

Learned Senior counsel representing the counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that when an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the trial Court has to consider the same before passing any orders on the injunction petition itself. He relied on the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Manakchand and Others Vs. Udairaj and Others arising out of S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1823/2022 and another judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Rajpal Singh Vs. Sunderlal arising out of WP.No.14349/2014 dated 30.03.2016 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in R.K. Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:34753 WP No. 20835 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

and Another¹ . Relying on this, it is submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

¶37

Learned Senior counsel representing the counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the defendant No.2 has filed the caveat, as such, on the ad interim application, the summons were served and on his request, the matter was adjourned and on 06.07.2026, they sought for a pass over and they have come up with this application in I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The trial Court rightly heard and reserved the matter for orders and rightly held that the application can be considered.

¶38

At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to go into the aspect when an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, whether the injunction application or the application for rejection of the plaint has to be decided first. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, as the trial Court has already heard I.A.Nos.1 and 2 for injunction and posted for

¶39

1 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 533

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34753 WP No. 20835 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

orders, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following order:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to consider I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC within a period of 1 week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶45

ii. The respondent No.1/plaintiff is at liberty to file their objections within a period of four days from today and shall co-operate with the trial Court for deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

¶46

iii. This order will not preclude the trial Court from passing the orders on I.A.Nos.1 and 2.

¶47

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

¶48

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶49

MEG

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

M/S. J. K. Ventures v. Sri. Kalikiri Subramanyam @ Subramanyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. J. K. Ventures v. Sri. Kalikiri Subramanyam @ Subramanyam

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

Sri M Ramachandra Vs Sri Madhu Sudan Reddy

Sampath Deceased by His Lr S Vs Sri. Jayaram

Mallesha Vs G H Kalashetty

M/S. Private Eye Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Sangeetha Mobiles

Sri. a. Somashaker Vs Smt. Chaya

Sri. K.P. Murthy, Vs Sri. Ashwathappa