[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Naveenkumar Matapathi vs Ateeq Ahamed on 8 December, 2025

Author: S Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                           -1-
                                                      NC: 2025:KHC:51700
                                                    WP No. 7354 of 2021


               HC-KAR



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                        BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 7354 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
              BETWEEN:

              1.   SRI NAVEENKUMAR MATAPATHI
                   S/O CHANDRASHEKAR
                   AGED 31 YEARS
                   POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
                   KUMSI POLICE STATION
                   KUMSI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND
                   DIST. - 577 423.

              2.   SMT. KAVITHA
                   W/O SHVIAKUMAR
                   AGED 31 YEARS
                   WOMEN POLICE CONSTABLE
                   KUMSI POLICE STATION
                   KUMSI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND
                   DIST. - 577 423.

              3.   SMT. ASHA
                   W/O NAGARAJ
Digitally          AGED 34 YEARS
signed by
NANDINI M S        WOMEN POLICE CONSTABLE
Location:          KUMSI POLICE STATION
HIGH COURT         KUMSI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND
OF
KARNATAKA          DIST. - 577423.

              4.   SRI NITHIN KUMAR
                   S/O RAJAPPA
                   AGED 25 YEARS
                   POLICE CONSTABLE
                   KUMSI POLICE STATION
                   KUMSI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND
                   DIST.- 577423.

              5.   KHALID AHAMMAD
                   S/O LATE ABDUL HAMEED
                   AGED 28 YEARS
                                -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:51700
                                     WP No. 7354 of 2021


 HC-KAR



     R/AT BEHIND MASJID ROAD
     HARNAHALI VILLAGE
     HARNAHALLI HOBLI
     SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND
     DIST.- 577416.

6.   KUNEN SARVARI
     S/O K SYED MAJAR
     AGED 22 YEARS
     R/AT BEHIND MASJID ROAD
     HARNAHALI VILLAGE
     HARNAHALLI HOBLI
     SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND
     DIST. - 577416.
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.)
AND:

1.   ATEEQ AHAMED
     S/O NISSAR AHAMMAD
     AGED 39 YEARS
     TIMBER MERCHANT
     R/O HARNAHALLI MASJID ROAD
     HARNAHALLI HOBLI
     SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND
     DIST. 577416.

2.   S.M. SHAMEENA
     W/O SYED MAJAR
     AGED 47 YEARS
     HOUSE HOLD DUTIES
     R/AT BEHIND MASJID ROAD
     HARNAHALI VILLAGE
     HARNAHALLI HOBLI
     SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND
     DIST.- 577416.

3.   SYED MAJAR
     S/O LATE SYED HUSSAIN SAB
     AGED 64 YEARS
     PETTY MERCHANT
     R/AT BEHIND MASJID ROAD
     HARNAHALI VILLAGE
     HARNAHALLI HOBLI
                                -3-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:51700
                                           WP No. 7354 of 2021


HC-KAR



    SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND
    DIST.- 577416.
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.N. HARISH, ADV., FOR R-1;
R-2 & R-3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

      THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD
12.03.2021 PASSED IN EX.NO.32/2021 FILED UNDER ORDER 39
RULE 2(A) R/W SEC.36 OF CPC, ON THE FILE FIRST ADDL CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA (I/C FIRST ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA) VIDE ANNX-E.

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

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                          ORAL ORDER

1. Petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition

filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer

to set aside the order dated 12.032021 passed in Ex.P.No.32 of

2021 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC,

Shivamogga.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Respondent no.1 herein has filed O.S.No.78 of 2021

before the jurisdictional civil Court at Shivamogga against the

respondent nos.2 and 3 herein seeking the relief of permanent

injunction and consequential relief of mandatory injunction in

NC: 2025:KHC:51700

HC-KAR

respect of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' property. In the said suit,

I.A.No.I was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and

the trial Court vide the order dated 04.02.2021, had passed an

ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction against the

defendants and their agents, men, representatives from

trespassing and putting up staircase in suit 'B' schedule

property or any type of construction in the said property which

would cause hindrance to the movement of plaintiff and his

family members to reach the backyard of his house through 'B'

schedule property. Alleging violation of the aforesaid ad-interim

order of temporary injunction granted in O.S.No.78 of 2021,

petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A R/w Section 151 of CPC &

Section 36 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, which is

numbered as Ex.P.No.32 of 2021. In addition to the original

defendants, who are arrayed as respondent nos.1 and 2 in

Ex.P.No.32 of 2021, the petitioners herein are also arrayed as

respondent nos.3 to 8 in Ex.P.No.32 of 2021 and the trial Court

has issued showcase notice to all the respondents in Ex.P.No.32

of 2021. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners, who are arrayed

as respondent nos.3 to 8 in Ex.P.No.32 of 2021 are before this

Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:51700

HC-KAR

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having

reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that,

petitioner nos.1 to 4 are the police officers of the jurisdictional

police station and unnecessarily, they have been made as

parties to the proceedings initiated under Order XXXIX Rule 2A

of CPC. He submits that petitioner nos.5 and 6 claim under

original defendant no.2 and they are not parties to the suit and

therefore there is no justification in arraying them as

respondents in an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A

of CPC. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of

the matter and has erred in issuing show cause notice to the

petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has

argued in support of the order impugned and submit that only

show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners and they

are at liberty to file their reply or objections before the trial

Court. They cannot question the said order before this Court.

He submits that petitioners herein have stepped into the shoes

of judgment debtors and therefore in view of the law laid down

by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

NC: 2025:KHC:51700

HC-KAR

RAMACHANDRA V LAXMANA RAO reported in ILR 2000

KAR 2341, they are bound to answer the show cause notice

that was issued by the trial Court. He submits that petitioner

nos.1 to 4 are public authorities, who have acted in a high-

handed manner and have supported the judgment debtors who

have willfully violated the ad-interim order of temporary

injunction granted by the trial Court in O.S.No.78 of 2021. In

support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the

judgment of this Court in the case of JAYAMMA AND OTHERS

V STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS reported in 2021 (2)

KCCR 1075.

6. O.S.No.78 of 2021 is filed by respondent no.1 here

seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the

defendants from putting up any type of staircase in 'B' schedule

property which is portion of 'A' schedule property and he also

has sought for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants

to demolish the staircase in the event they have put up any

staircase in 'B' schedule property. In the said suit, I.A.No.I was

filed under Order No.XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and the trial

Court vide the order dated 04.02.2021 has passed an ad-

NC: 2025:KHC:51700

HC-KAR

interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining the

defendants and their men, agents or representatives from

trespassing and putting up staircases in suit schedule 'B'

property or any type of construction in the said properties

which would cause hindrance for the movement of the plaintiff

and his family members to reach the backyard of his house

through 'B' schedule property. Alleging disobedience of the said

order, petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC is filed and

perusal of the cause title of the said petition would go to show

that in addition to the original defendants who are respondent

nos.1 and respondent no.2 in the said petition, the petitioners

herein are also arrayed as respondents nos.3 to 8 in the

petition.

7. Petitioner nos.1 to 4 herein are said to be the police

officers attached to the jurisdictional police station under which

the suit schedule property is situated. Allegation by the plaintiff

against these officers is that they have colluded with the

original defendants who have violated the ad-interim ex-parte

temporary injunction granted on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.78 of 2021.

If that is so, it is for the Plaintiff to file necessary complaint

NC: 2025:KHC:51700

HC-KAR

against the police officers before their higher officers so as to

take action against them in accordance with law. The officers of

a police station cannot be asked to stand trial in a proceedings

initiated under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, when undisputedly

they are not party defendants in the suit, in which an order has

been passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, which is

allegedly violated by the defendants to the suit. Under the

circumstances, I am of the opinion that trial Court was not

justified in issuing show cause notice to petitioner nos.1 to 4

herein. Insofar as petitioner nos.5 and 6 are concerned, it is

their case that though they claim right under original defendant

no.2 in the suit, since they are not parties to the suit, the trial

Court was not justified in issuing notice to them.

8. A reading of the ad-interim order of temporary

injunction would go to show that the said order has been

passed against the defendants or anybody claiming under or

through them and since petitioner nos.5 and 6 undisputedly

claim under the original defendant no.2 in the suit and since

they have allegedly violated the order of temporary injunction

along with defendant nos.1 and 2, they are answerable to the

NC: 2025:KHC:51700

HC-KAR

show cause notice, which is issued to them by the trial Court on

the allegation that the ad-interim order passed by the trial

Court on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.78 of 2021 has been willfully

violated by the defendant nos.1 and 2 and persons claiming

under them. Insofar as petitioner nos.1 to 4 herein are

concerned, they are not persons who claim under defendant

nos.1 and 2 to the suit and therefore they cannot asked to

show cause for the notice issued to them on a petition filed

under Order No. XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC.

9. In the case of RAMACHANDRA (supra), the

question that fell into consideration before the Division Bench

of this Court was whether a subsequent purchaser of the land

which was subject matter of decree for permanent injunction

can be held liable for having violated the decree of permanent

injunction granted against his vendor.

10. The Division Bench of this Court, taking into

consideration Section 146 of CPC, which provides for

proceedings by or against representatives has held that a

subsequent purchaser is a person who claims right over the

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:51700

HC-KAR

property which is subject matter of the decree for permanent

injunction under the judgment debtor and therefore he can be

considered as his representative and accordingly has held that

a decree for permanent injunction can be executed against the

transferee judgment debtor. The said judgment cannot be

made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present

case insofar as petitioner nos.1 to 4 are concerned, since they

do not claim any right, title or interest over the suitable

property either under defendant nos.1 and 2 or independent.

11. In the case of JAYAMMA (supra), this Court has

observed that public authorities is acting in a high-handed

manner are liable for action against them and the said order

has been passed in writ proceedings taking into consideration

the facts and circumstances of the said case. Therefore, the

said judgment also cannot be made applicable to the facts and

circumstances of this case. Under the circumstances, I am of

the opinion that the writ petition has to succeed insofar as

petitioner nos.1 to 4 herein are concerned.

12. Accordingly, the following:-

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:51700

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. Writ petition is partly allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 12.03.2021 passed in Ex.P.No.32 of 2021 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Shivamogga is quashed as against petitioner nos.1 to 4 herein are concerned.