Mr. Chand Bhasa v. Sri Mehaboob Basha K

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2026WP/35636/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, WP No. 35636 of 2025 (GM-CPC), decided 12-02-2026 by Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur. Defendant's writ challenge to appellate confirmation of temporary injunction in O.S. No.80/2018 abandoned via memo; only relief sought was speedy trial. Held: petition disposed of; Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Bangarpet directed to dispose suit within 8 months; no merits opinion. Keywords: certiorari not pressed, expeditious disposal, Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, Section 151 CPC, M.A. No.41/2018, permanent injunction suit, time-bound disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangarpet, to dispose of the original suit OS.No.80/2018 within an outer limit of 8 months; no opinion expressed on merits. ¶order-1

Mr. Chand Bhasa Vs Sri Mehaboob Basha K — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8623 WP No. 35636 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 35636 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. CHAND BHASA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS SON OF LATE C.K.KAREEMSAB, R/AT NO.9, NEAR C.M.C. BHARATHI WINES, OLD MADRAS ROAD, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560036

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. O RAJANNA.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI MEHABOOB BASHA.K S/O LATE C.K.KAREEM SAB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.1357, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGARPET-563114

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING ANNEXURE-A THE ORDER DATED 08-07-2019 PASSED IN M.A. NO.41/2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC., KGF AND BE PLEASED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NO.1 DATED 01-09-2018 IN O.S. NO.80/2018 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BANGARPET, VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.B) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:8623 WP No. 35636 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant Sri.O.Rajanna.

¶24

During the course of arguments, learned

¶25

counsel for the petitioner, who is the defendant in the original suit, OS.No.80/2018, files a memo seeking for a direction to be issued to the Learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangarpet, to dispose of the original suit itself expeditiously. He also contends that he will not press the prayer 'A' made in this petition and he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the trial Court to dispose of the main suit itself in an expeditious manner.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:8623 WP No. 35636 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The original suit came to be filed by the

¶30

respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for the permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. Along with the plaint, an application came to be filed by

¶31

the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, which came to be allowed. The petitioner/defendant was restrained from illegally interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. This order came to be challenged by the petitioner/defendant in MA.No.41/2018. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal, JMFC, KGF, confirming the orders passed in OS.No.80/2018. Though the petitioner/defendant has challenged the order passed in M.A.No.41/2018, he has filed a memo that he would be satisfied if a direction is given to the learned trial judge to dispose of the main suit expeditiously.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant

¶33

submits that presently the original suit in OS.No.80/2018

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:8623 WP No. 35636 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

is in the stage of cross examination of PW1, and the petitioner/defendant would not take much time to lead his evidence. At the most he may take about a month's time. Be that as it may, sufficient time would have to be granted to both parties to adduce evidence, cross-examine the witness, and produce any documents if so advised. However, this would not mean that the trial Court is precluded from passing any judgment or order lesser than 8 months.

¶38