Allowed¶44

Sri. Y.C. Eshwar Reddy v. Smt. Renukamma

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026WP/20901/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ad interim injunction application must be decided by trial court even before service of suit summons; emergent notice cannot substitute for decision on IA; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; GM-CPC; Kanakapura; Karnataka High Court; mention for advancement; follows W.P.No.35488/2025 practice direction on temporary injunction applications.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to pass orders on I.A.No.I within one week notwithstanding non-service of suit summons; petitioner at liberty to make a mention for advancing the matter; all pending IAs in the petition closed. ¶44

Sri. Y.C. Eshwar Reddy Vs Smt. Renukamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:35644 WP No. 20901 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 20901 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. Y.C. ESHWAR REDDY S/O Y.C. SANDEEP REDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1010, ABOVE CORPORATION BANK, 26TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK, BANGALORE - 49.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O LATE BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. BABY @ SUMA D/O LATE. BASAVAIAH, W/O SHIVARAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. SIDDARAJU J.B, S/O LATE. BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35644 WP No. 20901 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI J.B. D/O LATE. BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDING AT GADARANAHALLI VILLAGE, MARALAVADI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, NOW BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (1) CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.728/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.I dated 03.07.2026 passed in O.S.No.728/2026 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, whereby the Court, instead of considering I.A.No.I, has issued emergent notice to the defendants, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶27

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶28

that when an I.A, is filed seeking ad interim injunction, the

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35644 WP No. 20901 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Court has to consider the same on the merits of the matter and pass an order. But, the Court cannot issue suit summons.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dhalitha Vividha Gramodyoga Kaigarika Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSD, arising out of W.P.No.35488/2025 (GM-CPC) dated

¶33

09.12.2025, whereby the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

¶34

has observed as follows:

¶35

"6. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent-defendant for the reason that the petitioner is questioning the nonpassing 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.

¶36

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 17.11.2025] has made certain observations and guidelines as to how

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35644 WP No. 20901 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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."

¶42

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the order that is passed in W.P.No.35488/2025, this Court has passed the following;

¶43

ORDER .

¶44

(i) The Trial Court is directed to pass orders on I.A.No.I, within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, notwithstanding the fact that the suit summons are not served on the defendants.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:35644 WP No. 20901 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48