Disposed¶38

Rajashekar Gowda v. Manchappa N G

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2026WP/39088/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction; ad-interim ex-parte order; Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC; dispensing with notice; cryptic/unreasoned order set aside; remand for fresh consideration of I.A.No.1; Karnataka High Court; WP No. 39088/2025; Soraba; O.S.No.352/2025; Karnataka State Cricket Association v. Shashidhara A V.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; impugned order dated 16.12.2025 in O.S.No.352/2025 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba set aside; matter remitted to the trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.1 afresh in accordance with law within one month from 26.02.2026; all rival contentions kept/left open. ¶38

Rajashekar Gowda Vs Manchappa N G — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction order dated 16.12.2025 in O.S.No.352/2025 was sustainable where it assigned no reasons for dispensing with notice to the petitioners-defendants as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.

¶31

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 16.12.2025 is cryptic, laconic and unreasoned, and the trial Court failed to assign any reasons whatsoever for dispensing with notice to the petitioners as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The petition deserves to be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.1 afresh in accordance with law.

¶32

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.1 afresh in accordance with law within a period of 1 month from 26.02.2026.ratio¶39
All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.obiter¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (GM-CPC) by the defendants in O.S.No.352/2025 challenging the ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court found the impugned order cryptic, laconic and unreasoned, the trial Court having failed to assign any reasons for dispensing with notice to the defendants as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, relying inter alia on Karnataka State Cricket Association v. Mr. Shashidhara A V, W.P.No.33725/2025 (decided 17.11.2025). The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.1 afresh in accordance with law within one month from 26.02.2026, with all rival contentions left open and no opinion expressed on merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10129 WP No. 39088 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 39088 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJASHEKAR GOWDA S/O VEERASANGANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O CHIKKAVALI VILLAGE, UDRI POST, KUPPAGADE HOBLI SORAB TALUK SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577419

¶9

SMT. PREMAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O CHIKKAVALI VILLAGE, UDRI POST, KUPPAGADE HOBLI SORAB TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577419.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI. VEERENDRA R PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MANCHAPPA N G S/O GUDDE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O CHIKKAVALI VILLAGE, UDRI POST, KUPPAGADE HOBLI SORAB TALUK SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577419.

¶15

SHANTAPPA S/O ADIVEPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O CHIKKAVALI VILLAGE, UDRI POST, SORAB TALUK

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:10129 WP No. 39088 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

KUPPAGADE HOBLI SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577419 …RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.AMRUTHESH N.P., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 16.12.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA IN O.S.NO. 352/2025 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-K.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petition by the defendants in O.S.No.352/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 16.12.2025, whereby the trial Court directed grant of ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs against the petitioners-defendants.

¶26

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

¶27

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners-defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10129 WP No. 39088 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Along with the said suit, the respondents-plaintiffs have filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court proceeded to pass an ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction, which is assailed by the petitioners in the present petition.

¶31

4. In this context, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate the same is a cryptic, laconic, unreasoned and trial Court has failed to assign any reasons whatsoever as to why notice to the petitioners was being dispensed with as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in various judgments including a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association Vs. Mr. Shashidhara A V – W.P.No.33725/2025 dated 17.11.2025.

¶32

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.1 afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions. In the result, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) The petition is hereby disposed of.

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10129 WP No. 39088 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ii) The impugned order dated 16.12.2025 in

¶38

O.S.No.352/2025 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba is hereby set aside.

¶39

iii) The matter is directed to be remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.1 afresh in accordance with law within a period of 1 month from 26.02.2026.

¶40

iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are

¶41

kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions.

¶42

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶43

MDS

¶44

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 46

Rajashekar Gowda v. Manchappa N G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajashekar Gowda v. Manchappa N G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Mahesh Vs Vishalakshi

National Highway Authority of India Vs Smt Meera Shivalingaiah

Sri Y Padmanabha Rao Vs Mr Abdul Rehman

Smt Pushpavathi Vs Smt Komala

Nanjundegowda Vs Hanumanthegowda

Vanitha Y Hegde Vs Balakrishna Shetty