Sri J Krishna v. Sri Nagaraj Reddy

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2026WP/7777/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

police protection; Section 151 CPC; temporary injunction; counter injunction; cross-suits; Article 227; Karnataka High Court; GM-CPC; O.S. No.344/2023; O.S. No.15/2023; Misc. Appeal No.29/2023; IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Anekal; CPI Hebbagodi Police Station; restoration for fresh consideration

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.03.2024 set aside; application restored to the file of the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law; petitioner at liberty to place on record the order passed in O.S. No.15/2023. ¶¶49

Sri J Krishna Vs Sri Nagaraj Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in directing police protection to enforce the temporary injunction in O.S. No.344/2023 while a temporary injunction obtained by the petitioner against the respondent in O.S. No.15/2023 was already operating.

¶¶31

Court's answer

Where counter injunctive orders are operating against each other in different suits instituted by the respective parties, directing police protection to enforce one of the orders may not be appropriate.

¶¶44

Ratio / Principle

The attention of the trial Court appears not to have been invited to the order dated 11.04.2023 passed in O.S. No.15/2023 when it directed police protection.

¶¶40

Key takeaways

The impugned order directing police protection is set aside.ratio¶¶45
The police-protection application is restored to the file of the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.ratio¶¶46-47
The petitioner is at liberty to place on record the order passed in O.S. No.15/2023 for consideration by the trial Court.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (K.V. Aravind, J.), disposing of Writ Petition No. 7777 of 2024 (GM-CPC) filed under Article 227 by the defendant in O.S. No.344/2023 against the trial Court's order dated 04.03.2024 directing the CPI, Hebbagodi Police Station to assist the plaintiff in enforcing the temporary injunction granted on 11.09.2023. The petitioner had earlier obtained a temporary injunction against the respondent by order dated 11.04.2023 in his own suit O.S. No.15/2023 (Misc. Appeal No.29/2023 pending). Holding that where counter injunctive orders are operating against each other in different suits instituted by the respective parties, directing police protection to enforce one of the orders may not be appropriate, the Court set aside the impugned order, restored the Section 151 CPC application to the IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal for fresh consideration in accordance with law, and permitted the petitioner to place the O.S. No.15/2023 order on record.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8862 WP No. 7777 of 2024

¶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 K. V. ARAVIND

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 7777 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI J. KRISHNA, S/O LATE EERAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT TIUPALYA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI R. HEMANTH RAJ., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI NAGARAJ REDDY, S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT SY.No.8/4, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL TIRUPALYA SCHOOL, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI S. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2024 ON I.A. IN O S. No.344/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL AS PER ANNEXURE-H BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:8862 WP No. 7777 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri R. Hemanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Suresh, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

The defendant in O.S. No.344/2023 has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 04.03.2024 on the file of IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal (for short, 'the trial Court') passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking police assistance.

¶26

The respondent has instituted a suit for injunction in O.S.No.344/2023. The trial Court, upon consideration of I.A.No.1, granted an order of temporary injunction on 11.09.2023. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking police protection, alleging that the petitioner was interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property in violation of the order of temporary injunction. By the impugned order, the trial Court directed the CPI of Hebbagodi Police Station to render assistance to the plaintiff for the enforcement and implementation of the injunction order.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:8862 WP No. 7777 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Sri R. Hemanth Raj, learned counsel appearing for

¶31

the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has instituted O.S.No.15/2023, in which the respondent herein is arrayed as defendant No.5. It is further submitted that, by order dated 11.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.15/2023, the trial Court granted a temporary injunction against defendant No.5-respondent herein. He contends that when an order of temporary injunction was already operating in the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent, the trial Court committed an error in directing grant of police protection in the present proceedings.

¶32

4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has preferred Misc. Appeal No.29/2023 challenging the order of temporary injunction, and the same is pending consideration. It is contended that during the pendency of the said miscellaneous appeal, the trial Court committed an error in directing the grant of police protection.

¶33

Per contra , Sri S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–caveator, submits that the trial Court was justified in directing police protection in view of the violation of the order of temporary injunction dated 11.09.2023

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:8862 WP No. 7777 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the order of injunction passed in O.S.No.15/2023 pertains to a different property and has no bearing on the proceedings in O.S.No.344/2023.

¶38

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶39

The trial Court, in the suit instituted by the respondent in O.S.No.344/2023, granted an order of temporary injunction on 11.09.2023. Alleging violation of the said interim order by the petitioner, the respondent filed an application seeking police protection. By the impugned order, the trial Court directed grant of police protection. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has instituted O.S.No.15/2023, in which the respondent herein is arrayed as defendant No.5.

¶40

After hearing both parties, the trial Court passed an order of temporary injunction against defendant No.5, i.e., the respondent herein. It appears that the attention of the trial Court was not invited to the order dated 11.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.15/2023.

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8862 WP No. 7777 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Though it is contended that the said order has no

¶44

bearing on the suit in O.S.No.344/2023, the same requires consideration by the trial Court. If counter injunctive orders are operating against each other in different suits instituted by the respective parties, directing police protection to enforce one of the orders may not be appropriate.

¶45