Disposed¶40

Smt. K R Manjula, v. Smt. Sujatha B P

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/31397/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC writ petition under Article 227; temporary injunction Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC; appeal Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC; M.A.No.67/2024; O.S.No.254/2023 Tumakuru; appellate judgment dated 12.09.2025 modified; status-quo over suit schedule property till disposal of suit; suit disposal within four months; permanent injunction suit at evidence stage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; judgment dated 12.09.2025 in M.A.No.67/2024 modified; parties directed to maintain status-quo over the suit schedule property till disposal of O.S.No.254/2023; Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit within four months of receipt of certified copy, absent any stay order. ¶40

Smt. K R Manjula, Vs Smt. Sujatha B P — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the First Appellate Court's judgment dated 12.09.2025 in M.A.No.67/2024 (setting aside the Trial Court's temporary-injunction order in O.S.No.254/2023) should be disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit schedule property until disposal of the suit.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of and the judgment dated 12.09.2025 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru in M.A.No.67/2024 is modified.

¶41

Key takeaways

The parties are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit.ratio¶42
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, not later than four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, provided there is no order of stay of the said proceedings granted by any Court of law.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.), Writ Petition No.31397 of 2025 (GM-CPC), decided 06.04.2026 - Plaintiff-petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the judgment dated 12.09.2025 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru in M.A.No.67/2024 (defendants' appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC), which had set aside the temporary-injunction order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the VI Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru on an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.254/2023 (suit for permanent injunction). Since the suit had been set down for evidence of the parties, the Court disposed of the petition by modifying the appellate judgment and directing the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit, and further directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within four months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, provided there is no order of stay.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:18612 WP No. 31397 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.31397 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. K.R. MANJULA, WIFE OF H.R.RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT 'LAKSHMIRANGANATHA NILAYA’ S.B.M. LAYOUT, SIDDARAMESHWARA EXTENSION EAST, BATAWADI TUMAKURU CITY-572103.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. SUJATHA B.P., DAUGHTER OF PUTTARASAIAH WIFE OF LATE MAHESH D.S. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR SHANTHINIKETHANA SCHOOL SIDDARAMESHWARA EXTENSION EAST BATAWADI, TUMAKURU CITY-572103.

¶16

SRI. B.P.RAMACHANDRA @ RAMA SON OF PUTTARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR SHANTHINIKETHANA SCHOOL SIDDARAMESHWARA EXTENSION EAST BATAWADI, TUMAKURU CITY-572103.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:18612 WP No. 31397 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.09.2025, PASSED IN MA NO.67/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU AS PER ANNEXURE-G.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this writ petition, the petitioner-plaintiff has called in question the judgment dated 12.09.2025 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) in M.A.No.67/2024, whereby the said appeal has been allowed and order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the VI Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru (for short ‘Trial Court’) on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.254/2023 has been set aside.

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in Original Suit.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18612 WP No. 31397 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.254/2023 before the Trial Court seeking for relief of permanent injunction. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for an order of temporary injunction. The Trial Court, by order dated 05.12.2024, allowed the application and granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or anybody acting on their behalf from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Trial Court, the defendants filed M.A.No.67/2024 under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, by impugned order dated 12.09.2025 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff is before this court.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:18612 WP No. 31397 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

It is submitted that the matter is now set down for

¶35

evidence of parties before the Trial Court.

¶36

Therefore, having regard to the facts and

¶37

circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit schedule property until disposal of the suit.

¶38

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

a) The writ petition is disposed of.

¶41

b) The judgment dated 12.09.2025 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, in M.A.No.67/2024, is hereby modified.

¶42

c) Parties are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18612 WP No. 31397 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

d) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, not later than four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, provided there is no order of stay of the said proceedings granted by any Court of law.

¶46

e) Parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of the suit.

¶47

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Smt. K R Manjula, v. Smt. Sujatha B P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K R Manjula, v. Smt. Sujatha B P

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

Sri. K. Balakrishna Rao Vs Smt. Kavya B Rao

Abdul Mallick Vs Lakshman

M/S Pavan Puthra Resort Vs Sannegowda

Sri S R Sanjivamurthy, Vs Smt. S N Shree Mala

M P Ramesh Vs M Vasantha

Sri Kumar Guru Vs Sri K H Raja