Karnataka High Court
WP/30434/2026 of SRI. FAROOZ AHAMED Vs SMT. NASSIMUNNISA on 25 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010665912026 NC: 2026:KHC:53169 WP No. 30434 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 30434 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. FAROOZ AHAMED S/O. LATE. V.K. ABDUL
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30434 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. FAROOZ AHAMED
S/O. LATE. V.K. ABDUL REHAMAN
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O. SUBHASH NAGARA
KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED).
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NIRGUNA K.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. NASSIMUNNISA
W/O LATE IQUBAL SAB
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/O MURUGAN COLONY
WARD NO.9, BESIDE JUNIOR COLLEGE
KADUR TOWN.
2.
SMT. ZAHEEDA
W/O LATE VAZER SAB
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
3.
SRI. AFZAL
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
S/O LATE VAZER SAB
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4.
SRI. AFROZ
S/O LATE. VAZER SAB
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
5.
SRI. FAIROZ
S/O LATE. VAZER SAB
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
6.
SMT. JAREEN BHANU
D/O LATE. VAZER SAB
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
7.
SRI. FAROOQ
S/O LATE. VAZEER SAB
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 7 ARE
RESIDING AT RAJEEV GANDHI BADAVANE
FORT, KADUR TOWN,
KADUR TALUK - 577 548.
8.
SMT. SHAHINA
W/O MOHAMMAD SHARFUL SAB,
S/O LATE. VAZER SAB,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O AJAAD NAGARA, DAVANAGERE.
9.
SRI. NAZER AHAMMED,
S/O LATE. AMEER JAN,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/O BESIDES, MADANI MASJID,
HC-KAR
UPPALLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.
…RESPONDENTS
(VIDE O/D 25.09.2026 NOTICE TO RESPONODENTS IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING OR SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.9.2026 ON I.A. NO. 1 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 BEFORE THE TRIAL
COURT IN M.A. NO.26/2026 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, KUDUR, AS PER ANNEXURE-H. CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE SAID APPLICATION FOR STAY THE OPERATION OF THE
ORDER 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
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 15.09.2026 passed in M.A.No.26/2026, whereby the defendant has been restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, dispossessing them, or interfering with the layout development work being carried out over the plaint schedule properties.
HC-KAR
2. The petitioner preferred an appeal in M.A.No.26/2026, along with an application seeking stay of the order of injunction. The appellate Court, by order dated 15.09.2026, issued notice on the said application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of injunction is required to be stayed, as otherwise, third-party interests may be created in respect of the suit schedule properties. 3.1 It is further submitted that the petitioner claims rights under registered sale deeds, whereas the plaintiffs claim rights under orders passed by the revenue authorities, which are subsequent to the execution of the said sale deeds.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not necessary to stay the entire order of injunction dated 05.09.2026. However, in order to preserve the nature of the property insofar as the title thereto is concerned, it would suffice to direct both the parties not to create any third-party rights in respect of the suit schedule property until
HC-KAR
consideration of I.A.No.1 filed in M.A.No.26/2026, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur.
5. In view of the limited interference proposed by this Court, notice to the respondent stands dispensed with.
6. The appellate Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.1, seeking stay of the impugned order, within one month 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.: 17