Karnataka High Court
Gulbarga Cement Ltd vs Mr Shivappa Julphi on 6 March, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2196
WP No. 201090 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 201090 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
GULBARGA CEMENT LTD.,
REGD OFFICE MALLIK'S EMBASSY NO.9,
" S B BLOCK" 2ND FLOOR,
UNION STREET OFF INFANTRY ROAD,
CUBBON CROSS ROAD, BANGALURU-560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. R. K. NAGESH,
OFFICE GULBARGA CEMENT LTD,
1ST FLOOR DR. ABID SR RESIDENCY,
OLD JEWARGI ROAD, OPP. L. R. RATHI HOSPITAL,
KALABURAGI-585102.
Digitally signed by ...PETITIONER
SWETA KULKARNI
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. SHIVALING N. PADSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. MR. SHIVAPPA JULPHI
S/O SHIVASARANAPPA JULPHI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KIRANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
2. MR. SHANKAR GOBBURA
S/O ERANNA GOBBURA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2196
WP No. 201090 of 2026
HC-KAR
R/O KIRANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
3. MR. ERANNA ULLAGADDI
S/O REVAPPA ULLAGADDI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KIRANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
4. MR. PRABHU BYRAMADAGI
S/O ERANNA BYARAMADAGI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KIRANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
5. MR. NAGAPPA POOJARI S/O NINGAPPA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KIRANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
6. MR. BHAGWANT KHABA
S/O HANUMANTHARAYA KHABA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KIRANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
7. MR. BHAGWANT DANDGUND
S/O SANGANNA DANDGUNDA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KIRANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
8. MR. BASAVARAJ GOBBURA S/O SANGANNA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KIRANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
9. MR. SHARANAPPA NARIBOLI S/O NINGAPPA,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KIRANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2196
WP No. 201090 of 2026
HC-KAR
10. MR. BABU JULPHI
S/O BHIMMANA JULPHI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KIRANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
11. MR. BHIMASHANKAR
S/O SHIVAPPA SARADAG,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KIRANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
12. MR. LATHEEF JAGIRDAR
S/O SHAIK MEHABOOB,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O FEROZABAD VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585310.
13. MR. BASAVARAJ S/O BABU MALAKAPPA,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC; AGRICULTURE,
R/O. FEROZABAD VILLAGE, TQ. KALABURAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585310.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION AND QUASH THE ADJOURNMENT ORDER
(ANNEXURE-F) OF DATED 28/02/2026, GRANTING AN AEON
TIME PERIOD TO ON 01/04/2026, FOR THE PURPOSE TO FILE
OBJECTIONS AND HEAR ON IA-1, BY LEARNED II ADDL JUNIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC KALABURAGI IN O.S.47/2026 AND
KINDLY BE ORDERED TO ALLOW SAID IA-1.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2196
WP No. 201090 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the following relefs:
"Wherefore, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the writ petition and quash the adjournment order (Annexure-F) of dated 28.02.2026 granting an aeon time period to on 01.04.2026 for the purpose to file objections and hear on I.A.No.1, by learned II Addl. Junior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi in O.S.No.47/2026 and kindly be ordered to allow said I.A.No.1 in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The plaintiff has filed O.S.No.47/2026 before the Court of Junior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaburagi, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants who are arraigned as respondents in this writ petition, restraining them from unlawfully trespassing into the suit schedule property and interfering with the project work of the plaintiff company in the suit schedule property. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2196 WP No. 201090 of 2026 HC-KAR
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the suit schedule property totally measuring 1821 acres situated at Ferozabad, Kiranagi and Somanathahalli of Gulbarga taluk and district is allotted to the plaintiff/company by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board on 26.08.2014. Subsequently, on 20.01.2023, after receiving a sum of Rs.2,18,52,00,000/- from the plaintiff/company as premium of the rent reserved, registered lease deed has been executed by KIADB in favour of the plaintiff/company. Defendants, who have no right whatsoever over the suit schedule property are unnecessarily trespassing into the suit schedule property and interfering with the project work of the plaintiff. It is under these circumstances, plaintiff/company had approached the jurisdictional Civil Court and has filed a suit in OS No.47/2026 and in the said suit, IA No.1 is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of CPC seeking ex-parte temporary injunction against defendants. He submits that the Trial Court till date has not considered IA No.1 though the suit was filed on 06.02.2026 itself and on the other hand, suit summons is already served on the defendants and the matter is -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2196 WP No. 201090 of 2026 HC-KAR adjourned at the instance of some of the defendants, who have entered appearance.
5. He submits that under similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of N. A. Haris vs. Rajiv Hegde and Others i.e., WP.No.13992/2012 disposed off on 07.03.2014 having taken note that the Trial Court had adjourned the suit after service of notice to the defendants beyond a period of one month has directed the Trial Court to consider the application for temporary injunction within time frame.
6. Perusal of the order sheet in OS No.47/2026 would go to show that all the defendants have been already served. The Trial Court on 28.02.2026 at the request of some of the defendants, who were represented before the Court has adjourned the matter to 01.04.2026 to enable them to file objections to IA No.1 though learned counsel for the plaintiff - company had insisted to pass an order on the application having regard to the urgency.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2196 WP No. 201090 of 2026 HC-KAR
7. In the case of N. A. Haris (supra), in almost identical circumstances, this Court has directed the Trial Court to take up the application for temporary injunction for hearing immediately and to dispose off the same within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order passed in the said case. In paragraph No.5 of the order passed in the said case, it is observed as follows:-
"5. .... Once notice is duly served and the defendant enters appearance, the requirement of Rule 3 is complied with. The Court can proceed to pass orders after hearing the parties. If the defendant wants the Court to consider his defence, he must file his objections on his appearance. It is for that purpose the notice is issued. The Court is under an obligation to hear the parties at the earliest and pass an order on merits, one way or the other. If the Court declines to grant an order of temporary injunction, the plaintiff has a remedy by way of an appeal. He cannot have any grievance against the Court. But, after approaching the Court he is neither granted an interim order nor his application is heard and decided on merits after appearance of the defendant and in the meanwhile his or her rights are affected, injury is caused, then it would be a case of injury being caused to him by the in -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2196 WP No. 201090 of 2026 HC-KAR action on the part of the Court and not by the opposite party. Because all that is expected of him or her has been done, but still his or her case is not heard and no orders are passed. Such a situation is to be avoided at any cost by the Courts."
8. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that even this writ petition is required to be disposed off directing the Trial Court to take up the application IA No.1 in OS No.47/2026 filed by the plaintiff - company seeking an order of temporary injunction for hearing immediately and to dispose off the said application within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. Writ petition is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SVH,DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT:PK