Sri. Kurein Varghese Vs Sathish

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 21 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 16 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

IN W.P.No. 21/2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. KUREIN VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O MR. K.O VARGHESE, R/AT NO.145, JAL VAYU VIHAR, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. S.VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. SHAIK ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SATHISH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O VENKATRAMANAPPA, NO.345, BALU NIVAS, DODDAGUBBI, BODARAHALI VILLAGE, DODDAGUBBI POST BENGALURU – 560 077.

¶16

SRI.P.R.RAJESH S/O P. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI.P.RAMACHANDRA S/O P. VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8,

¶21

5^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶22

SRI. V V RAMAMURTHY S/O V V VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 45YEARS, R/A 56, 3^RD CROSS, CHOWDESHAWARINILAYA, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶23

SRI. B. GOVINDAPPA @GOVINDARAJU S/O BALAGURAPPA AGED ABOUT 57YEARS, R/A 236, 17^TH CROSS, WARD NO 2, KONDAPPA LAYOUT YELEHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶24

SRI. ABU BAKAR SIDDIK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O ABBAS KHAN R AT NO 43 /1B 2^ND CROSS 1^ST MAIN ROAD, JAIL ROAD

¶25

VENKATESHNAGAR, SHIVAMOGA DIST – 577 201.

¶26

MOHAMMED KHAN DURANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED SHADIK,

¶27

BEGUM SULTANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O MOHAMMED KHAN DURANI

¶28

R -7 & R-8 ARE R/A NO.306, 4^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, KANVA LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. JAYSHAM JAYASIMHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6 NOTICE TO R-1 TO R-5, 7 & 8 D/W)

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2026 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE R6 UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IN OS NO. 551/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶35

IN W.P.NO. 16/2026

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

SRI. KUREIN VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O MR. K.O VARGHESE, R/AT NO.145, JAL VAYU VIHAR, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶38

…PETITIONER

¶39

(BY SRI. S.VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. SHAIK ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

SATHISH

¶42

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O VENKATRAMANAPPA, NO.345, BALU NIVAS, DODDAGUBBI, BODARAHALI VILLAGE, DODDAGUBBI POST BENGALURU – 560 077.

¶43

SRI.P.R.RAJESH S/O P. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶44

SRI.P.RAMACHANDRA S/O P. VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8,

¶45

5^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶46

SRI. V V RAMAMURTHY S/O V V VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 45YEARS, R/A 56, 3^RD CROSS,

¶47

4 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

CHOWDESHAWARINILAYA, YELAHANKA,

¶51

BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶52

SRI. B. GOVINDAPPA @GOVINDARAJU S/O BALAGURAPPA AGED ABOUT 57YEARS, R/A 236, 17^TH CROSS, WARD NO 2, KONDAPPA LAYOUT YELEHANKA,

¶53

BENGALURU-560 064.

¶54

SRI. ABU BAKAR SIDDIK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O ABBAS KHAN R AT NO 43 /1B 2^ND CROSS 1^ST MAIN ROAD, JAIL ROAD VENKATESHNAGAR, SHIVAMOGA DIST – 577 201.

¶55

MOHAMMED KHAN DURANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED SHADIK,

¶56

BEGUM SULTANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O MOHAMMED KHAN DURANI

¶57

R -7 & R-8 ARE R/A NO.306, 4^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, KANVA LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶58

…RESPONDENTS

¶59

(BY SRI. JAYSHAM JAYASIMHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 NOTICE TO R-1 TO R-5, 7 & 8 D/W)

¶60

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO TOSETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN M.A. NO.7/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRCT AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER IN AND OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OR ANY PART THEREOF, PENDING CONSIDERATION OF THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 5 OF CPC, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

¶61

5 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶65

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶66

ORAL ORDER

¶67

W.P.No.16/2026 is directed against the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed in M.A.No.7/2025 by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (1^st appellate court).

¶68

W.P.No.21/2026 is filed by the very same petitioner against the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed on the application filed by the 6^th respondent – 6^th defendant under Section 151 CPC in O.S.No.551/2025 on the file of I Addl.Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (Trial court).

¶69

Since the common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in these petitions, the same are taken up together for consideration.

¶70

For the order proposed and in view of the memo filed by the learned counsel for petitioner, notice to respondents 1 to 5 and 7 to 8 is dispensed with.

¶71

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner – plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.551/2025 against the

¶72

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

respondents – defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the plaint schedule property. In the said suit, apart from filing the written statement and contesting the suit, 6^th respondent – 6^th defendant not only filed the written statement but also put forth his counter claim schedule property for permanent injunction and other reliefs against the plaintiff. In the said suit, the petitioner – plaintiff filed applications for temporary injunction in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC against the 6^th respondent – 6^th defendant, who in turn filed an application I.A.No.5 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC for temporary injunction against the plaintiff. All the three applications were heard together and culminated in an order dated 16.12.2025, whereby the trial court rejected I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed by the petitioner – plaintiff and allowed the application I.A.No.5 filed by the 6^th respondent – 6^th defendant. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial court, the petitioner – plaintiff filed appeals in M.A.No.7/2025 and M.A.No.8/2025, in which, the 1^st appellate court declined to pass any interim order and directed issuance of notice to 6^th respondent – 6^th defendant. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed in M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025

¶75

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

declining to grant any interim order in favour of the petitioner, he has preferred W.P.No.16/2026.

¶78

In the meanwhile, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the trial court, the 6^th respondent – 6^th defendant filed an application seeking police protection to enforce and implement the order passed in his favour. By the impugned order dated 03.01.2026, the trial court allowed the said application and directed the jurisdictional police to give police protection in favour of 6^th respondent – 6^th defendant against the petitioner, who has preferred connected W.P.No.21/2026.

¶79

Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 6^th respondent and perused the material on record.

¶80

The material on record discloses that the aforesaid appeals in M.A.No.7/2025 and M.A.No.8/2025 were preferred before the vacation court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and the same would necessarily have to be transferred and posted before the 1^st appellate court which is the court of competent

¶81

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

jurisdiction i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

¶84

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 6^th respondent jointly submit that since both the appeals filed by the petitioner are pending before the 1^st appellate court, the present petitions may be disposed of directing the 1^st appellate court to dispose of the appeals on merits and in accordance with law within a stipulated timeframe by keeping open all contentions and the parties may be directed to maintain status quo in all respects in relation to the plaint schedule property as well as the counter claim schedule property till disposal of the appeals. The said submissions are placed on record.

¶85

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had filed appeals in M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025 prior to the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the trial court granting police protection, the said order dated 03.01.2026 was passed without giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the same having been passed on the re-opening date after winter vacation, the said order may be set aside and the

¶86

9 -

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

trial court may be directed to reconsider the said application after disposal of the appeals in M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025.

¶90

Per contra, learned counsel for the 6^th respondent submits that the 6^th respondent had filed the said application on 18.12.2025 and despite granting sufficient opportunity, the petitioner did not file objections to the said application for police protection and as such, the order impugned in W.P.No.21/2026 dated 03.01.2026 does not warrant interference by this Court in the said writ petition.

¶91

A perusal of the material on record as well as the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the joint submission made by both sides with regard to disposal of the appeals within a stipulated timeframe, directing both parties to maintain status quo in relation to the suit schedule property is concerned, since the appeals are still pending adjudication before the 1^st appellate court as on today, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of W.P.No.16/2026 by directing

¶92

10 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

both parties viz., petitioner and 6^th respondent to appear before the 1^st appellate court on 12.01.2026 and directing the 1^st appellate court to dispose of the appeals by issuing certain directions in this regard.

¶96

Insofar as W.P.No.21/2026 is concerned, the order sheet maintained by the trial court will clearly indicate that on 16.12.2025, the trial court rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner – plaintiff and allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the 6^th respondent – 6^th defendant. Immediately, thereafter, the 6^th respondent – 6^th defendant filed an application on 18.12.2025 within two days thereafter seeking police protection and the matter was adjourned to 19.12.2025 and thereafter to the re-opening day i.e., 03.01.2026, on which date, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order granting police protection by noticing that the petitioner – plaintiff had not filed objections to the said application. In this context, it is relevant to state that non-grant of sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and contest the application for police protection, particularly when the petitioner had already filed the aforesaid appeals in

¶97

11 -

¶98

NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025, is clearly violative of principles of natural justice, warranting interference by this Court in the said petition by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration of the application for police protection afresh after disposal of M.A.Nos.7/2025 and

¶101

8/2025 in accordance with law.

¶102

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶103

ORDER

¶104

(i) W.P.No.16/2026 is hereby disposed of.

¶105

(ii) Petitioner and 6^th respondent are directed to appear before the jurisdictional / designated 1^st appellate court on 12.01.2026 without awaiting further notice from the 1^st appellate court.

¶106

(iii) The 1^st appellate court shall hear both sides and dispose of the appeals on merits within a period of four weeks from 12.01.2026.

¶107

(iv) W.P.No.21/2026 is hereby allowed.

¶108

(v) The impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the trial

¶109

court in O.S.No.551/2025 directing grant of police protection is hereby set aside.

¶110

12 -

¶111

NC: 2026:KHC:578 WP No. 21 of 2026 C/W WP No. 16 of 2026

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

(vi) The matter is remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh the application for police protection filed by the 6^th respondent – 6^th defendant after disposal of M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025 as stated supra.

¶114

(vii) It is further directed that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo in all respects as on today in relation to the suit schedule property and counter claim schedule property till disposal of M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025.

¶115

(viii) It is further directed that the 1^st appellate court shall dispose of M.A.Nos.7/2025 and 8/2025 without being influenced by the findings and observations, if any, recorded in the present order.

¶116

(ix) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open

¶117

and no opinion is expressed on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions.

¶118

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶119

Srl.

Sri. Kurein Varghese v. Sathish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kurein Varghese v. Sathish

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

Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri.Ziaulla Sheriff

Giriyappa Vs Thimmamma

Sri. Subbanaika @ Subbanna Vs Sri K N Mahesh

M/S Divyarama Talkies Private Limited Vs Idea Baaz Tech Private Limited

Channabasavaiah Vs Mamatha D S

Sri Doddaiah Vs Sri Thimmaiah