Disposed

Smt. Puttamma v. Shri Shine K Anthony

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2026WP/21547/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff challenged trial court's issuance of notice instead of deciding the temporary injunction application in a permanent injunction suit. Relying on a co-ordinate bench order, the High Court directed the trial court to decide the application within one week notwithstanding non-service of suit summons.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to decide I.A.No.1 within one week from receipt of copy of order, notwithstanding suit summons not served; pending I.As. closed.

Smt. Puttamma Vs Shri Shine K Anthony — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36667 WP No. 21547 of 2026

¶3

CNR: KAHC010482002026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 21547 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE. MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

¶11

SMT. RAJAMMA W/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

¶12

SHRI.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE/ SELF BUSINESS

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SHRI. MUNIRAJU S/O MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

¶15

SHRI.VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE. MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS (PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED)

¶16

ALL ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF KOTHTHAJEEGURU VILLAGE, PEDDABELAGONDAPALLI POST, DENKANIKOTE TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:36667 WP No. 21547 of 2026

¶20

CNR: KAHC010482002026

¶21

TAMILNADU- 635 114

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SHRI SHINE K ANTHONY S/O ANTONY K.C AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 237, G.P.R GRAND, GOWRAMMA LAYOUT, CHANDAPURA ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 099

¶26

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, D/O LATE. ALLALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A SHIVARA PATNA VILLAGE AND POST, MALURU TALUK, KOLARA-563 130

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE, THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND TO ISSUE.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:36667 WP No. 21547 of 2026

¶34

CNR: KAHC010482002026

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The present writ petition is filed questioning the orders dated 09.07.2026 in O.S.No.472/2026 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, the plaintiff is before this court.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff has filed a suit, O.S.No.472/2026, seeking a permanent injunction, and has also filed I.A.No.1 for an injunction, wherein the trial court has issued suit summons to the defendants on I.A.No.1. Instead of considering the same on the merits of the matter, the trial court issued an emergent notice and suit summons.

¶38

Further he has relied on the order passed by Coordinate 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

¶39

09.12.2025, whereby Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as follows:

¶40

"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

¶41

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:36667 WP No. 21547 of 2026

¶44

CNR: KAHC010482002026

¶45

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.

¶46

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 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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36667 WP No. 21547 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

CNR: KAHC010482002026

¶52

temporary injunction by providing proper reasons."

¶53

It is submitted that when an IA is filed seeking an interim

¶54

injunction, the trial court ought to have considered it on the merits of the matter without issuing summons to the other

¶55

In the light of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.35488/2025(GMCPC) dated 09.12.2025 this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. The writ petition is disposed of directing the

¶58

trial court to consider I.A.No.1 within a period of one week from the date of the receipt of the copy of order, notwithstanding the fact that the suit summons are not served on the defendant.

¶59

ii. Pending I.As., in this petition shall stand closed.

¶60

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶61

TS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Smt. Puttamma v. Shri Shine K Anthony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Puttamma v. Shri Shine K Anthony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkata Ramaiah Vs Smt.Padma

Sri Ramanjanappa Vs Sri Muniyappa

Mrs Sameena Khanum Vs Mr S N Shabbeer Ahmed Khan

Gangappa Vs Smt Venkatamma

M/S Cresurge E-Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Pepper Interactive Communications

Sri. K.P. Gangadhara, Vs Sri Shankrappa