Dismissed¶50

Sri Doddaiah v. Sri Thimmaiah

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026WP/37871/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (single judge, S.R. Krishna Kumar, 06.01.2026) dismisses writ petition under Article 227 against Trial Court order granting police protection under Section 151 CPC to enforce a temporary injunction in O.S.No.100/2021; prior injunction orders had attained finality after W.P.No.21735/2025 was dismissed on 22.08.2025; Supreme Court decisions on limited scope of interference under Articles 226/227 relied upon.

What did the court decide?

Upon disposal of W.P.No.21735/2025 on 22.08.2025 declining to interfere, the orders of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting/confirming the temporary injunction attained finality and became conclusive and binding upon the parties. ¶43

Sri Doddaiah Vs Sri Thimmaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 12.09.2025 allowing the respondents-plaintiffs' application under Section 151 CPC for police protection to enforce the temporary injunction suffers from illegality or infirmity, or occasioned failure of justice, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶43

Court's answer

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application for police protection for the purpose of enforcing and implementing the order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and confirmed by this Court.

¶43

Key takeaways

The impugned order allowing police protection does not suffer from illegality or infirmity, nor has it occasioned failure of justice warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam, K.P. Natarajan and Mohamed Ali.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendants in O.S.No.100/2021 (Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi) challenging the order dated 12.09.2025 on IA No. IV allowing the respondents-plaintiffs' application under Section 151 CPC for police protection to enforce the temporary injunction granted on 12.09.2023, which was upheld on appeal in M.A.No.22/2023 (dismissed 06.06.2025) and confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.21735/2025 (dismissed 22.08.2025). Held: the injunction orders having attained finality and become conclusive and binding, the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing police protection for enforcing and implementing the temporary injunction; the impugned order involved no illegality, infirmity or failure of justice warranting interference under Article 226, reliance being placed on Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan v. Muthalammal (AIR 2021 SC 3443) and Mohamed Ali v. V. Jaya (2022) 10 SCC 477. Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:616 WP No. 37871 of 2025

¶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. 37871 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI DODDAIAH S/O LATE KARETHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. KEMPAMMA, W/O DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT MELANAHALLI, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGA DISTRICT – 562 120

¶12

ALSO R/A KATMALLU VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRONAGAR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 049

¶13

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

¶14

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI THIMMAIAH S/O LATE BETTAIAH @ H. BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

SRI. CHIKKAKEMPAIAH, S/O LATE HUCHAPPA @ HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶19

BOTH ARE R/A MELANAHALLI, MADABAL HOBLI, SUNKATHIMMAIAHNAPALYA, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGA DISTRICT – 562 120

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:616 WP No. 37871 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.09.2025 ON IA NO. IV PASSED IN OS NO. 100/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MAGADI AS PER ANNX-A.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.100/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi (for short “the Trial Court”) is directed against the impugned order dated 12.09.2025, whereby the application filed by the respondentsplaintiffs under Section 151 CPC for police protection was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶30

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.100/2021 against the petitioners-defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, the respondents having filed an application for temporary injunction, which was contested by the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:616 WP No. 37871 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

petitioners, the Trial Court passed an order dated 12.09.2023 allowing the application for temporary injunction in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs against the petitioners-defendants, who filed an appeal in M.A.No.22/2023, which came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide order dated 06.06.2025. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.21735/202/2025, which was dismissed vide final order dated 22.08.2025 as hereunder:

¶35

“The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the orders of the Civil Court granting injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiff and the First Appellate Court rejecting the challenge to the grant of such injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶36

2. The reasons so rendered by the concerned Courts would not merit any entertainment of the subject petition, as the reasons are cogent and in accordance with law.

¶37

3. The concurrent findings of the Court qua the injunction does not warrant any interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

4. The petition, leaving open all the remedies available in law and the contentions urged before the suit, stands disposed.

¶39

Ordered accordingly.”

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:616 WP No. 37871 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

It is needless to state that upon disposal of the aforesaid W.P.No.21735/2025 by this Court on 22.08.2025 declining to interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the said orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have attained finality and became conclusive and binding upon the parties. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application for police protection for the purpose of enforcing and implementing the order of temporary injunction, which was passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.21735/2025 dated 22.08.2025. It is therefore clear that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing police protection sought for by the respondentsplaintiffs cannot be said to suffer from illegality and infirmity nor can the same is said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423,

¶44

K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:616 WP No. 37871 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477 .

¶49

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is

¶50