[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Viswa Promoters vs Mr. H.Purushotham Reddy on 9 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7529
MFA No. 236 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 236 OF 2026 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. VISWA PROMOTERS
HAVING OFFICE AT, NO.503, 90/D,
PRASHANTH HOSPITAL, 6TH FLOOR,
VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BOMMANAHALLI, BEGUR,
BENGALURU-560068.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR. VISHWANATH REDDY/CHANNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
SON OF CHANNA REDDY,
RESIDING AT, NO.470,
PRASHANTH NILAYA,
18TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN ROAD,
HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR
Digitally signed by BENGALURU - 560102.
PREMCHANDRA M R ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SRI. N S SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. H.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SON OF LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY,
RESIDING AT, 7TH CROSS,
NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7529
MFA No. 236 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. SMT. NAGAVENI P
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WIFE OF ASHOK HV,
RESIDING AT, NO.236, 6TH MAIN,
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
HONGASANDRA, BENGALURU-560068.
3. SMT. MAMATHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WIFE OF ARUN KUMAR S,
RESIDING AT, NO.151, 7TH CROSS,
SINGASANDRA SHAMS SCHOOL ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068.
4. SMT. ASHWINI P
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WIFE OF ANIL KUMAR,
RESIDING AT NO.90/90,
NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
DODDANEKKUNDI,
BENGALURU-560037.
5. SMT. SARITHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WIFE OF VINAY REDDY,
RESIDING AT, 814, 17TH F 1ST CROSS,
NEAR KORAMANGALA CLUB, 6TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560095.
6. MR.VENKATESH ALIAS VENKATESH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
SON OF LATE HANUMAPPA,
RESIDING AT, SINGASANDRA POST,
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560068.
7. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
WIFE OF VENKATESH REDDY,
RESIDING AT, SINGASANDRA POST,
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560068.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:7529
MFA No. 236 of 2026
HC-KAR
8. MR. MANJUNATH V
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
SON OF VENKATESH ALIAS VENKATESH REDDY,
RESIDING AT, SINGASANDRA POST,
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560068.
9. SMT. NEELAMMA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
WIFE OF MUNINANJAPPA
RESIDING AT, NO.231,
BELLANDUR VILLAGE AND POST,
VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560100.
10. MR.RAVI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SON OF ANUSUYAMMA
RESIDING AT, CHANNAKESHAVA NAGAR,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560100.
11. MR.ANANDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
SON OF LATE GOWRAMMA
RESIDING AT, CHIKKABEGUR GATE,
MADIWALA POST, BENGALURU-560068.
12. SMT. AMITHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE GOWRAMMA
RESIDING AT, CHIKKABEGUR GATE,
MADIWALA POST, BENGALURU-560068.
13. SMT. RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
WIFE OF MUNI REDDY
RESIDING AT, BELLANDUR VILLAGE AND POST,
VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560037.
14. SMT.GUNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WIFE OF LATE NAGARAJA REDDY
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:7529
MFA No. 236 of 2026
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT, CHANNAKESHAVA NAGAR,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560100.
15. MR. BK PADMANABHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
SON OF LATE BM KRISHNA REDDY
RESIDING AT, NO.74/1, MARATHALLI,
OUTER RING ROAD, APOLLO CLINIC BUILDING,
BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560103.
16. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI PADMANABHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
WIFE OF BK PADMANABHA REDDY
RESIDING AT, NO.74/1, MARATHALLI,
OUTER RING ROAD, APOLLO CLINIC BUILDING,
BELLANDUR, BENGALURU - 560103.
17. SMT. SHWETHA PADMANABHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WIFE OF AMARENDRA REDDY CHINTAM REDDY
RESIDING AT,
NO.212, MAYFAIR VILLAS,
TELLAPUR OSMAN NAGAR ROAD,
SANGAREDDY, TELANGANA-502032.
18. M/S. GENURISE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS
M/S MJR BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,
COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956) HAVING
OFFICE AT, NO.444, GRAND, 3RD FLOOR,
16TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT,
SECTOR-6, BENGALURU-560102.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR.UDAYA KUMARA
19. MR. ANAND HASSANAND CHANDWANI
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
SON OF LATE MR.HASSANAND
SUGNOMAL CHANDWANI,
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:7529
MFA No. 236 of 2026
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT, VILLA NO.248,
(B) AL WASL ROAD,
JUMEIRAH 1, DUBAI-60998.
20. MISS. NEETA ANAND
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
D/O OF LATE MR. HASSANAND
SUGNOMAL CHANDWANI
RESIDING AT, VILLA NO.248,
(B) AL WASL ROAD,
JUMEIRAH 1, DUBAI-60998.
21. SMT.PAVITHRA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
WIFE OF NAGARAJU M
RESIDING AT, NO.435,
NAGARAJU MUNIREDDY BUILDING,
4TH CROSS, BELLANDUR,
VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWARA S. SHASTRY,
SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.R.S.SUBRAHMANYA KAUSHIK, ADVOCATE
FOR C/R1 TO R5;
VIDE ORDER DATED 13.01.2026,
NOTICE TO R6 TO R21 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:7529
MFA No. 236 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, Senior counsel on behalf of
Sri.N.S.Sriraj Gowda, for the appellant and Sri. Vigneshwara
S.Shastry, Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.R.S.Subrahmanya
Kaushik, for caveator/ respondents 1 to 5, appeared in person.
2. The appeal is filed by defendant No.14 to set aside
the order dated the sixth of November 2025, passed by the
Court of XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6523/2025.
3. For convenience's sake, the parties shall be referred
to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court.
4. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking certain reliefs.
They also filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX,
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, restraining defendant No.14 from
alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit schedule property
in favor of third parties till the disposal of the suit. Defendant
No.14 contested the application. The Trial Court vide order
dated the sixth of November 2025, passed the status quo
order. Under these circumstances, defendant No.14 has filed
NC: 2026:KHC:7529
HC-KAR
this appeal on several grounds as set out in the memorandum
of appeal.
5. Counsel for the respective parties presented several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with
care.
6. The following point arises for consideration.
Was the Trial Court legally justified in passing
a status quo order in response to an application for
a temporary injunction?
7. The facts are already clear. No further detail is
required. The dispute relates to the interim injunction order
passed by the Trial Court in response to the application filed by
the plaintiffs. The true copy of the temporary injunction
application filed by the plaintiffs is furnished along with the
appeal, and the same has been perused with care. The plaintiffs
sought a restraint order against defendant No.14 from
alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit schedule property
in favour of third parties. While the plaintiffs sought a restraint
order against Defendant No.14 from alienating or encumbering
NC: 2026:KHC:7529
HC-KAR
the suit schedule property, the Trial Court passed an order
directing the parties to maintain the status quo. Prima facie, it
appears that as of the date of passing of the impugned order,
nothing was shown by either party as to the present status of
the property to maintain the status quo. The Trial Court passes
a status quo order without verifying the current status. The law
is well settled that a "Status Quo" Order without defining the
current state of affairs is vague, unworkable, and creates doubt
and ambiguity. The Trial Court adopted a 'short-cut method' of
passing an order of status quo without determining the factual
matrix of the case, which amounts to a failure to exercise
jurisdiction. The status quo order passed by the Trial Court on
an injunction application is considered legally fragile and is
unsustainable in law. Therefore, the status quo order passed by
the Trial Court is legally tenuous and unsustainable.
Consequently, the matter warrants a remand for fresh
consideration. In light of the legal infirmities, the Trial Court's
status quo order cannot stand. A remand is necessary to decide
the injunction application afresh in accordance with the law.
NC: 2026:KHC:7529
HC-KAR
8. For the foregoing reasons, the order
dated:06.11.2025 passed by XXXIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6523/2025 is
set aside.
9. Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and defendant
No.14 jointly submitted that they would appear before the Trial
Court to address arguments on the injunction application on the
18th day of February 2026. Taking note of the said submission,
counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendant No.14
are permitted to address their arguments on the 18th day of
February 2026. All the contentions of the plaintiffs and of
defendant No.14 are left open. The Trial Court is to pass a
suitable order on the application afresh in accordance with the
law.
10. As a result, the appeal is allowed.
SD/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71
