[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr. S K Adam Pasha vs Mr. Syed Ghouse on 16 December, 2025

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                               -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:53592
                                                      WP No. 33462 of 2025


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                            BEFORE

                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 33462 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

                   BETWEEN:

                         MR. S K ADAM PASHA
                         S/O MR.S.M. MOHAMMED KHALEEQ
                         AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
                         R/AT NO.7/A, 3RD C CROSS
                         NAGAMMA LAYOUT, KAVALBYRASANADRA
                         R.T. NAGAR POST
                         BENGLAURU - 560 032.
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. SYED NASEERUDDIN.,ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.    MR. SYED GHOUSE
                         AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
                         S/O LATE ABDUL LATHIF
                         R/AT NO.399, 2ND CROSS
                         1ST MAIN, R.K. HEGDE NAGAR
                         S.R.K. NAGAR POST
Digitally signed
by                       BENGALURU -560 077
GAVRIBIDANUR
SUBRAMANYA
GUPTA              2.    MRS. SHAKEELA BEGUM,
SREENATH                 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Location: HIGH           W/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD
                         NEAR RICHARDS PARK
                         RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
                         BENGALURU -560 084.

                   3.    MRS. MASIHA BEGUM,
                         AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                         D/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:53592
                                   WP No. 33462 of 2025


HC-KAR



     R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD
     NEAR RICHARDS PARK
     RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
     BENGALURU -560 084.

4.   MR. SYED ABID,
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
     S/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH
     RESIDING AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD
     NEAR RICHARDS PARK
     RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
     BENGALURU -560 084.

5.   MR.SYED NASIR,
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
     S/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH
     R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD
     NEAR RICHARDS PARK
     RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
     BENGALURU -560 084.

6.   MR.SYED MANSOOR,
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
     S/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH
     R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD
     NEAR RICHARDS PARK
     RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
     BENGALURU -560 084.

7.   MR.BUQARI
     SYED NADEEM AHMED
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
     S/O. LATE.SRI. SYED RASOOL AHMED
     R/AT NO.399, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN
     R.K. HEGDE NAGAR, S.R.K.NAGAR POST,
     BENGALURU -560 077.

8.   SMT.TASNIYA TABASSUM,
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
     W/O. SRI. BUQARI SYED NADEEM AHMED
                              -3-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:53592
                                       WP No. 33462 of 2025


HC-KAR



    S/O. LATE. SRI. SYED RASOOL AHMED
    RESIDING AT NO.399, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN
    R.K. HEGDE NAGAR, S.R.K. NAGAR POST,
    BENGALURU -560 077.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 13.10.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXIII Addl. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, M.H. Unit, BENGALURU (CCH No.74)
ON LA NO. 1 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER XXXIX
RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC IN O.S NO.26074/2025.

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


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR


                          ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff.

2. Parties shall be referred as per their ranking

before the trial Court.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff

being aggrieved by non-passing of the exparte ad-interim

order on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 &

2 of CPC. The trial Court has merely stated in the

impugned order that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made

NC: 2025:KHC:53592

HC-KAR

out prima facie ground for considering the prayer sought

in the application filed under Order - XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of

CPC and ordered issuance of emergent notice with suit

summons to the respondents/defendants.

4. It is the grievance of learned counsel for

petitioner/plaintiff that the trial Court has not applied its

mind and has mechanically issued emergent notice without

considering the material placed on record including the

sale deed and possession of the plaintiff over the suit

schedule property and interference of defendants in the

plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property. It is also contended that the learned

trial Judge has refrained from passing any reasoned order

and has merely stated that plaintiff has not made out

prima facie ground for considering the prayer. Whereas,

plaintiff has made several averments in the plaint and so

also in the affidavit accompanying the application filed

under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC as to the need and

urgency for grant of an ad-interim order of Temporary

NC: 2025:KHC:53592

HC-KAR

Injunction and that the issuance of notice would cause

delay and severe hardship, damage and injury to the

person and property of the plaintiff, including the threat of

dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit schedule

property. Having not considered all these aspects, the

trial Court has committed an error and illegality and

therefore seeks to set aside the impugned order and

consequently to grant an ad interim order of Temporary

Injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have

not yet appeared before the trial Court. It is submitted

that the next date of hearing in the original suit

proceedings is on 5.1.2026.

5. This Court does not find any need or necessity to

issue notice to the respondents/defendants for the reason

that this Court is not inclined to pass any favourable order

to the petitioner/plaintiff, which would affect the rights of

the defendants. This Court is inclined to remit the matter

back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the

NC: 2025:KHC:53592

HC-KAR

application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for

adjudication afresh in accordance with law.

6. While considering the application for an ad-interim

order of Temporary Injunction, the trial Court is obligated

and duty bound to follow the procedure contemplated in

law and so also the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and

2 and the provision of Order XXXIX Rule 3 and the proviso

thereto.

7. This Court in the case of Karnataka State

Cricket Association -vs- Mr. Shashidhara A.V in Writ

Petition No.33725 of 2025 (GM-CPC) decided on 17th

November 2025 has laid down certain guidelines as to how

the trial Court needs to consider an application under

Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC.

8. It is needless to mention that the trial Court is

obligated and duty bound to pass a reasoned order on the

application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC

rather than merely saying that the plaintiff has not made

NC: 2025:KHC:53592

HC-KAR

out ground for consideration of prayer sought in I.A. No.1

and that it is just and reasonable to give an opportunity of

hearing to the opposite party.

9. The proviso to Order XXXIX Rules 3 contemplates

grant of an ad interim order of Temporary Injunction prior

to issuance of notice and under extraordinary exceptional

circumstances, the trial Court is obligated and duty bound

to pass orders by providing reasons and it cannot merely

say that plaintiff has not made out prima facie ground and

that the defendants required to be heard, which is not the

procedure to be followed. So also it is not the intention or

the spirit of the Legislature while making the proviso to

Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC.

10. For the reasons stated above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to

reconsider the application filed under Order XXXIX

NC: 2025:KHC:53592

HC-KAR

Rules 1 & 2 of CPC afresh and pass reasoned

order either granting or rejecting the interim order

of Temporary Injunction.

ii) The trial Court shall consider the application on its

merits including the averments made in the

affidavit accompanying the application and so also

the documents produced alongwith the plaint and

the urgency shown by the petitioner/plaintiff and

pass reasoned order in the light of the judgment

of this Court in the case of Karnataka State

Cricket Association -vs- Mr. Shashidhara A.V

in Writ Petition No.33725 of 2025 (GM-CPC)

decided on 17th November 2025, in accordance

with law.

iii) Learned counsel for petitioner is at liberty to

advance the matter before the trial Court. On

such application being made, the trial Court shall

accept and allow such application and consider

I.A. No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of

NC: 2025:KHC:53592

HC-KAR

CPC in O.S. No.26074/2025 and pass suitable

orders on or before 19th December 2025.