Smt. R Sharadha Vs Prakash Paul C

SRI C. PRAKASH PAUL S/O LATE T.CHINNASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.42, TCR RESIDENCY ERANAPALYA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU-560045.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS, QUASHING ORDER DATED 05.06.2026 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-2) IN O.S NO. 3823/2026 I.E. ANNEXURE-A AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNJUST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35894 WP No. 20961 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court, questioning an order dated 05.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.3823/2026 by the I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court has granted an ex parte temporary injunction restraining the defendant or anybody acting on her behalf from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, till the next date of hearing and suit summons were issued and the matter was directed to be listed on 22.07.2026.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a caveat and without even issuing notice to the petitioner, the trial Court had passed the order. It is submitted that the plaintiff is unconnected with the suitscheduled properties. Under the guise of the interim order that has been granted, the plaintiff is going to the police, and the police, under the guise of the said order, are trying to interfere

¶23

with the petitioner's possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued on the merits of the matter and

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:35894 WP No. 20961 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

submits that this is a case where the court has to interfere with the order impugned.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record, the court has granted a temporary injunction. It is contended that the petitioner has filed a caveat. The impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioner. As far as the submission regarding the merits of the matter is concerned, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits. If this Court interferes with the order, notice has to be issued to the respondent, and it will unnecessarily protract the litigation. The matter is coming up before the trial Court on 22.07.2026. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the trial Court to deal with the objections filed by the petitioner and, particularly giving a finding regarding the caveat petition filed by the petitioner and, without notice to the petitioner, why the Court has passed an order.

¶29