Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt Rathnamma Vs Smt Meenamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Smt Rathnamma Vs Smt MeenammaSmt Rathnamma v. Smt Meenamma

Disposed¶45

Smt Rathnamma v. Smt Meenamma

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2026WP/24055/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rathnamma v. Meenamma & others, W.P. No.24055/2022 (GM-CPC), High Court of Karnataka, single bench (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), order dated 12.06.2026. Challenge to trial Court order dated 08.11.2022 on IA.No.1 in OS.No.1375/2022 (suit for permanent injunction over Sy.No.46/3, 24 guntas, Avalahalli Village) where ex parte temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was not granted and only suit summons with emergent notice was ordered. Petition pending since 28.11.2022 without notice; suit transferred and renumbered OS.No.43/2026 (Principal Civil Judge, K.R.Puram). Disposed of with direction to the trial Court to consider the temporary injunction application in accordance with law at the earliest. Keywords: temporary injunction, ex parte injunction, Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, suit summons, emergent notice, writ disposed with direction, no merits decided, no precedents cited, no costs or quantum.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to consider the petitioner/plaintiff's application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in accordance with law, at the earliest. ¶45

Why is it important?

It is appropriate to direct the trial Court to consider the petitioner/plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in accordance with law, at the earliest; the Court did not decide the merits of the temporary injunction application itself. ¶44

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to consider the petitioner/plaintiff's application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in accordance with law, at the earliest.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 08.11.2022 passed on IA.No.1 in OS.No.1375/2022 by the IV Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District — by which the trial Court ordered issue of suit summons and emergent notice instead of granting the pressed ex parte temporary injunction — ought to be quashed and the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC considered.

Court's answer

It is appropriate to direct the trial Court to consider the petitioner/plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in accordance with law, at the earliest; the Court did not decide the merits of the temporary injunction application itself.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.11.2022 passed on IA.No.1 in OS.No.1375/2022 by the IV Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. The petitioner/plaintiff, claiming ownership of Sy.No.46/3 measuring 24 guntas at Avalahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, had filed a suit for permanent injunction and an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking (ex parte) temporary injunction, producing photographs of alleged construction by the defendants; the trial Court ordered issue of suit summons and emergent notice on IA.No.1 instead of granting the injunction. The suit has since been transferred to the Principal Civil Judge, K.R.Puram, and renumbered as OS.No.43/2026. Noting that the writ petition had been pending since 28.11.2022 without notice being ordered, the High Court disposed of the petition directing the trial Court to consider the Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC application in accordance with law, at the earliest.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28568 W.P. No.24055/2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.24055/2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED 80 YEARS R/AT. AVALAHALLI VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE 560049 (AADHAR CARD NO 6749 5954 1066).

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. LAKSHMANA K.M. ADV., FOR SRI. BABU D.R. ADV.,)

AND:

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. MEENAMMA W/O ANAND AGED 45 YEARS R/AT NEAR SHEKAR BUILDING AVALAHALLI VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE 560049.

SMT. SUJATHA W/O SRINIVASA AGED 32 YEARS R/AT NEAR SHEKAR BUILDING AVALAHALLI VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE 56049.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28568 W.P. No.24055/2022

HC-KAR

SMT. MANJAMMA D/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED 60 YEARS.

SRI. RAGHU AGED 35 YEARS.

LAKSHMI AGED 33 YEARS.

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT NEAR BSR LAYOUT NEXT TO RAFI GYM AVALAHALLI VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE 560049.

SMT. GAYATHRI D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NEAR BUS STOP AVALAHALLI VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE 560049.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE IN OS.NO.1375/2022 BY ALLOWING THE IA FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED 08.11.2022 & ETC.

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28568 W.P. No.24055/2022

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.11.2022 passed on IA.No.1 in OS.No.1375/2022 by the IV Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short ‘the trial Court’).

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

perused the material on record.

The petitioner has filed OS.No.1375/2022 against the respondents seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is shown as a piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.46/3 measuring 24 guntas situated at Avalahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28568 W.P. No.24055/2022

HC-KAR

Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking an order of temporary injunction against the defendants. The petitioner pressed the said application and sought an exparte temporary injunction. The trial Court vide order dated 08.11.2022, ordered to issue suit summons and emergent notice on IA.No.1 to the defendants. It is to be noticed that the petitioner/plaintiff has specifically asserted that she is the owner of the suit schedule property and that the defendants are trying to dispossess and putting up construction in a certain portion of the suit schedule property. In order to substantiate the same, she has produced photographs. It is further to be noticed that the suit in OS.No.1375/2022 is now transferred to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and has been re-numbered as OS.No.43/2026 and is pending before the said Court.

It is also to be noticed that this writ petition has

been pending since 28.11.2022 and even notice in the petition has not yet been ordered. Hence, it would be

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28568 W.P. No.24055/2022

HC-KAR

appropriate to direct the trial Court to consider the application of the petitioner/plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in accordance with law, at the earliest. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition

is disposed of .

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

ABK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order dated 08.11.2022 passed on IA.No.1 in OS.No.1375/2022 by the IV Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District — by which the trial Court ordered issue of suit summons and emergent notice instead of granting the pressed ex parte temporary injunction — ought to be quashed and the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC considered.¶24
The court held
It is appropriate to direct the trial Court to consider the petitioner/plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in accordance with law, at the earliest; the Court did not decide the merits of the temporary injunction application itself.ratio¶44

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227¶24
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2¶34

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 08.11.2022 passed on IA.No.1 in OS.No.1375/2022 (application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction), by which the trial Court ordered issue of suit summons and emergent notice on IA.No.1 to the defendants instead of granting the pressed ex parte temporary injunction.¶31
IV Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru · 08.11.2022
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed OS.No.1375/2022 against the respondents seeking permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.46/3 measuring 24 guntas at Avalahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.¶34
Prior proceeding
Petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction, pressed it, and sought an ex parte temporary injunction.¶38
Prior proceeding
Trial Court by order dated 08.11.2022 ordered issue of suit summons and emergent notice on IA.No.1 to the defendants (the impugned order).¶38
Prior proceeding
Suit OS.No.1375/2022 transferred to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru Rural District, and renumbered as OS.No.43/2026, where it is pending.¶38
Prior proceeding
Writ petition pending since 28.11.2022; notice in the petition had not yet been ordered.¶40

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA¶8
Lakshmana K.M., Babu D.R.
respondent
SMT. MEENAMMA W/O ANAND¶13
respondent
SMT. SUJATHA W/O SRINIVASA¶14
respondent
SMT. MANJAMMA D/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA¶18
respondent
SRI. RAGHU¶19
respondent
LAKSHMI¶20
respondent
SMT. GAYATHRI D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA¶22

Coram

AI extract

Vijaykumar A. Patilauthor¶29

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 12 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 1 Dec 2022
Case no.: WP/24055/2022
CNR: KAHC010552612022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Vijaykumar A. Patil
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Writ Petition (GM-CPC)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Vijaykumar A. Patil

Smt. Anjinamma Vs Sri. a Doddaiah
11 Jun 2026
Sri. B. S. Nagendra Vs Sri. B. a. Channakeshava
11 Jun 2026
Sri Chikkaveeraiah Vs Smt Kempamma
11 Jun 2026
Smt Saraswathi Vs Sri P Sriramulu
12 Jun 2026
J Prashanth Hegde Vs Dr H Nanjappa
12 Jun 2026
Maxworth Realty India Limited Vs Smt. Nagalakshmanna Since Dead by Lrs
12 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt Rathnamma v. Smt Meenamma, WP/24055/2022 (KA), decided on 12 June 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Order dated 08.11.2022 passed on IA.No.1 in OS.No.1375/2022 (application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction), by which the trial Court ordered issue of suit summons and emergent notice on IA.No.1 to the defendants instead of granting the pressed ex parte temporary injunction.IV Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru · 08.11.2022
Petitioner filed OS.No.1375/2022 against the respondents seeking permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.46/3 measuring 24 guntas at Avalahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
Petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction, pressed it, and sought an ex parte temporary injunction.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Vijaykumar A. Patil

Parties & counsel