Karnataka High Court
WP/30952/2026 of SMT CHANDANA MARY Vs SRI N YELLAPPA on 1 October 2026
CNR: KAHC010681442026 NC: 2026:KHC:54950 WP No. 30952 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 30952 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANDANA MARY W/O. LATE THOMAS, AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30952 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. CHANDANA MARY
W/O. LATE THOMAS,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.33, CHURCH ROAD,
KAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 084.
2.
SRI. BERTHALOMEO P.,
S/O. LATE PHILOMENRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.272, 5TH MAIN,
6TH CROSS, KAMMANAHALLI,
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
BENGALURU - 560 084.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AVINASH P., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
SRI N. YELLAPPA
S/O. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.37,
KANAKADASA LAYOUT,
3RD CROSS, LINGARAJAPURAM,
ST. THOMAS TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 084.
…RESPONDENT
(V/O
DATED
01.10.2026
NOTICE
TO
RESPONDENT
IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 17.09.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXVIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, CCH-29), ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S. NO.26002/2026, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO
LAW AND ETC,.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 17.09.2026, whereby the Trial Court granted an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants therein, namely, the petitioners herein, from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the respondent, under the guise of the interim order, is attempting to dispossess the petitioners. 2.1 It is further submitted that objections have been filed to the pending application before the Trial Court and that, on two occasions, a request was made to advance the matter for consideration of the said application. However, on account of the absence of learned counsel for the plaintiff, the application could not be considered for final adjudication.
3. In view of the limited nature of interference, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
HC-KAR
4. This Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, is inclined to make limited interference by directing both parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property until the pending I.A. No.1, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, is adjudicated.
5. The Trial Court is requested to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the pending application within six weeks from the next date of hearing.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60