[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Odi Thomas vs Sri Suresh on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14944
W.P. No.15242/2020
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.15242/2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. ODI THOMAS
S/O SRI. DEVSAIAH
AGE 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.164, PADAGURU
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA GUNDLUPETE TALUK
BAHAR KHANAM CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
Location: HIGH REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER
COURT OF SRI. M.K. ANANTHANARAYANAN
KARNATAKA S/O LATE KRISHNA IYER
AGE 55 YEARS
R/AT DHANALAKSHMI NILAYA
SANDI BEEEDI, OPP. CHAMARAJESWARA
TEMPLE, CHAMARAJANAGAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. SURESH
S/O SRI. PUTTAPPA
AGE MAJOR
R/AT. SHINDAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GUNDLUPETE TALUK
GUNDULUPETE.
2. SRI. CHANDRU
S/O SRI. SHANTHAPPA
AGE MAJOR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14944
W.P. No.15242/2020
HC-KAR
R/AT SHINDANAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GUNDALAPETE TALUK
GUNDALAPETE.
3. SRI. RAGHU
S/O SRI NAGESHAPPA
AGE 21 YEARS
R/AT. SHINDANAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI.
4. SRI. ARUN
S/O SRI RAJAPPA
AGE MAJOR
R/AT. SHINDANAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GUNDALAPETE TALUK
GUNDALAPETE.
5. SRI. SHANTHAPPA
S/O SRI MUDHIYAPPA
AGE MAJOR
R/AT. SHINDANAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GUNDALAPETE TALUK
GUNDALAPETE.
6. SRI. S.T. MAHADEVASWAMY
S/O SRI THAMANNA
AGE 31 YEARS
R/AT SHINDANAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GUNDALAPETE TALUK
GUNDALAPETE.
7. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
AGE 29 YEARS
S/O SRI MAHADEVAPPA
R/AT SHINDANAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GUNDALAPETE TALUK
GUNDALAPETE.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14944
W.P. No.15242/2020
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF IA NO.1 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DTD 24.02.2020 IN O.S.NO.190/2019 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT GUNDLUPT
VIDE ANNX-L. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL
IN MISC.APPEAL NO.2/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER, DTD
16.09.2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT GUNDLUPET VIDE ANNX-N, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA
NO.1 UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC FILED IN OS
NO.190/2019 ON THE FILE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT GUNDLUPET & 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 seeking the following reliefs:
"Issue WRIT of CERTORARI or any appropriate
order by quashing the Impugned Order of
Dismissal of I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner,
dated 24.02.2020 in O.S.No.190/2019 on the
file of Principle Civil Judge & JMFC at Gundlupet
as per Annexure-L, in the interest of justice
and equity.
Issue WRIT of CERTORARI or any appropriate
order by quashing the Impugned Order of
Dismissal in Misc.Appeal No.2/2020 filed by the
petitioner, dated 16.09.2020 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Gundlupet as per
NC: 2026:KHC:14944
HC-KAR
Annexure-N; Consequently allow the I.A.No.1
under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC filed in
O.S.No.190/2019 on the file of Principle Civil
Judge & JMFC at Gundlupet, in the interest of
justice and equity.
Grant such other and further reliefs as deemed
fit, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Sri.Bhat Ganapathy Narayan, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a
suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-
defendants on the ground that they are interfering with
the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. In the said suit,
the plaintiff filed an application seeking for temporary
injunction, which came to be rejected by the trial Court
and the same is affirmed by the appellate Court under the
impugned orders. It is submitted that this Court granted
interim order of injunction, which is in force till this day
and further submits that if the said interim order is
continued till the disposal of the suit, the ends of justice
would be met. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:14944
HC-KAR
3. Though the notice issued to the respondent is
served, they remained exparte.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the material
available on record.
5. The petitioner has filed a suit in
O.S.No.190/2019 before the Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Gundlupet, (for short, 'the trial Court'), for the
relief of permanent injunction and in the said suit the
petitioner-plaintiff has filed an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking prayer of temporary
injunction against the defendants on the ground that the
petitioner-plaintiff has obtained the license for stone
quarrying on 09.11.2018 from the Government of
Karnataka and other concerned Department, despite the
same, the defendants in the suit have stopped the vehicle
of the plaintiff and tried to extract money from the
plaintiff. The said application came to be rejected by the
NC: 2026:KHC:14944
HC-KAR
trial Court vide order dated 24.02.2020. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner filed M.A.No.2/2020, which also came to be
dismissed by affirming order of the trial Court.
6. It is to be noticed that the petitioner-plaintiff
has made certain assertion in the plaint with regard to his
possession over the suit schedule property based on the
quarrying license issued to him by the State Government
and the respondent-defendants are trying to
disposes/objecting the plaintiff from carrying out the
quarrying activity.
7. Be that as it may, the trial Court as well as the
appellate Court considering the material on record, came
to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff has not made
out prima-facie case to grant the relief of temporary
injunction and those orders are challenged in the present
petition.
8. It is to be noticed that this Court on 26.03.2021
has granted interim order as sought for in the application
NC: 2026:KHC:14944
HC-KAR
and the said interim order is in force till this day, which is
more than four years. It is also submitted that the
O.S.No.190/2019 is pending before the trial Court. In my
considered view, without going to the contentions
advanced by the petitioner-plaintiff in the application for
temporary injunction, interest of justice would be met if
the interim order granted by this Court on 26.03.2021 is
extended till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.190/2019.
The interim order dated 26.03.2021 reads as under:
"Issue emergent notice.
Stay as sought for, till next date of hearing."
The prayer sought in the application is as under:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying
affidavit, the applicant/petitioner prays that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim
order of temporary injunction restraining the
respondents/defendants and their agents, servants
or anybody claiming through under them from
interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the schedule property in the interest of
justice and equity."
NC: 2026:KHC:14944
HC-KAR
9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, writ petition is disposed of. The interim order
dated 26.03.2021 granted by this Court is extended till the
disposal of the O.S.No.190/2019 by the trial Court.
The trial Court shall not be influenced by the order of
this Court nor the impugned orders passed by the Courts
below.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
