[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Chikkathayamma vs Sri Marigowda on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14903
W.P. No.9987/2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.9987/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA
W/O LATE DEVEGOWDA
AGED 73 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA 2. SRI. Y.D. DEVARAJU
BAHAR KHANAM S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA
Location: HIGH AGED 55 YEARS.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BOTH ARE R/AT Y. YARAHALLI
KOTHATHI HOBLI
MANDYA TQ - 571478.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. MARIGOWDA
S/O MILLAPPA @ DEVAIAH
AGED 61 YEARS.
2. SRI. Y.M. MAHADEVA
(NOT AS MANUKUMAR)
S/O MARIGOWDAA
AGED 32 YEARS.
3. SRI. MADHUKUMAR Y.M.
S/O MARIGOWDA
AGD 28 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14903
W.P. No.9987/2022
HC-KAR
ALL ARE R/AT Y. YARAHALLI
KOTHATHI HOBLI
MANDYA TQ -571478.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 03.03.2021 MADE IN MA NO.12/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MANDYA
VIDE ANNEXURE-E & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated
03.03.2021 passed in M.A.No.12/2019 by the Additional
Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya (for short, 'the
Appellate Court').
2. Sri.Akarsh Kumar Gowda, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners-
plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants-
respondents, for permanent injunction on the ground that
the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession
NC: 2026:KHC:14903
HC-KAR
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is
submitted that the plaintiffs filed an application for
temporary injunction which was considered by the Trial
Court and by a detailed order, the defendants were
restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of
the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property till the
disposal of the suit. It is further submitted that the
defendants challenged the order of the Trial Court before
the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court reversed the
order of the Trial Court and hence, the present petition is
filed. It is also submitted that this Court, vide order dated
10.06.2022 continued the interim order granted by the
Trial Court and the said order is in force till today. It is
contended that if the said order is continued till the
disposal of the suit, ends of justice would be met. Hence,
he seeks to allow the petition.
3. Though the respondents are served, they have
not filed any objections.
NC: 2026:KHC:14903
HC-KAR
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioners and perused the material
available on record.
5. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed O.S.No.638/2018
for the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the
plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(for short, 'the CPC') seeking for temporary injunction.
The Trial Court, considering the rival submissions and
taking note of the material on record, allowed the
application by restraining the defendants from disturbing
the plaintiffs' right over the suit schedule property till the
disposal of the suit. The said order of the Trial Court was
assailed by the defendants in M.A.No.12/2019. The
Appellate Court, vide order dated 03.03.2021, allowed the
appeal by setting aside the order of the Trial Court. It is
to be noticed that the defendants, though served with the
writ petition proceedings, have not appeared. This Court,
NC: 2026:KHC:14903
HC-KAR
vide order dated 10.06.2022, has passed the following
order:
"Issue emergent notice to respondents.
The captioned writ petition is filed by the
plaintiffs who have questioned the order of the
Appellate Court passed in M.A.No.12/2019 on the file
of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mandya, vide
Annexure-E reversing the order of the learned Trial
Judge, granting injunction in favour of
petitioners/plaintiffs.
Learned Senior counsel reiterating the grounds
would contend that petitioners/plaintiffs have placed
several title documents to make out a prima facie
case. He would further point out that the learned
Judge referring to this prima facie material has
rightly granted interim injunction. The Appellate
Court, however, by solely relying on the Khatha has
reversed the order and has rejected the application.
Perused the order under challenge.
The order of the Appellate Court in reversing
the order on I.A.No.1 needs re-consideration.
In that view of the matter, execution and
operation of order dated 03.03.2021 passed in
M.A.No.12/2019 is stayed, till the next date of
hearing.
NC: 2026:KHC:14903
HC-KAR
The interim order granted by the Trial Court
shall continue pending consideration of the writ
petition before this Court."
6. It is also to be noticed that the aforesaid
interim order passed by this Court is continued till this day
and the suit is pending for adjudication before the Trial
Court and the suit is required to be considered in
accordance with law. Taking note of the interim order
granted by this Court, I am of the view that the interest of
justice would be met if the interim order granted by this
Court on 10.06.2022 is continued till the disposal of the
suit. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The Judgment dated 03.03.2021 passed in
M.A.No.12/2019 by the Additional Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Mandya, is hereby set aside.
NC: 2026:KHC:14903
HC-KAR
(iii) The order passed by this Court on 10.06.2022 is
continued till the disposal of the suit.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
