Karnataka High Court
WP/29069/2026 of SRI M K KARIYAPPA Vs SRI M K RAMACHANDRA on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010630532026 NC: 2026:KHC:52637 WP No. 29069 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 29069 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M.K. KARIYAPPA S/O M.K. KUMARAPPA, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 29069 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI M.K. KARIYAPPA
S/O M.K. KUMARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT HANAGAL SHETTALLI VILLAGE,
SOMWARPETE HOBLI AND TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI M.K. RAMACHANDRA
S/O M.L. KUMARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT HANAGAL SHETTALLI VILLAGE,
SOMWARPETE HOBLI AND TALUK,
2.
SMT. PONNAMMA,
W/O MUDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT MAGERI VILLAGE AND POST,
SAKLESHAPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 123.
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
SMT. M.K. KAVERI,
D/O LATE KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/A SRIMANGALA VILLAGE, VIRAJPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 571 217.
4.
SMT. LALITHA,
W/O HALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O SRIMANGALA VILLAGE,
VIRAJPETE TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 217.
5.
SRI M.T. UMESHA,
S/O LATE M.K. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
6.
SRI M.T. NAGESHA,
S/O. LATE M.K. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
7.
SRI M.K. PRASANNA
S/O. LATE M.B. KOMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
8.
SRI M.P. JYOTHI
D/O LATE M.K. PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
9.
SRI M.P. PRADHAN
S/O LATE M.K. PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
10.
SRI C. SHARATH,
S/O LATE M.M. CHANGAPPA
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
11.
SRI M.R. PONNAPPA,
S/O LATE M.K. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
12.
M.M. BOPPAIAH
S/O LATE MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
13.
SRI M.M. VENKATESH
S/O LATE MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
14.
SRI M.S. ERAPPA,
S/O LATE SHANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 14 ARE
R/AT HANAGAL SHETTALLI VILLAGE
SOMWARPETE HOBLI AND TQ.,
KODAGU DIST. - 571 236.
…RESPONDENTS
(VIDE
O/D
23.09.2026
NOTICE
TO
RESPONDENTS
IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE A DATED 25/08/2026 BY THE
PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SOMWARPETE IN MA.NO.09/2026
AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER IMPUGNED AT ANNEXURE B
DATED 29/07/2026 PASSED IN OS.NO.09/2026 ON THE FILE
OF
THE
HON'BLE
SENIOR
CIVIL
JUDGE
AND
JMFC,
HC-KAR
SOMWARPETE DISMISSING THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION IN
LA.NO.01/2026 IN ORDER TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY 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 25.08.2026 passed in M.A.No.9/2026. The petitioner instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.9/2018 and also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Trial Court, by order dated 29.07.2026, rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred M.A.No.9/2026 before the appellate Court, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court proceeded to hold that, in the absence of an application seeking stay of the order dated 29.07.2026, whereby the application for temporary injunction was rejected, the application filed in M.A.No.9/2026 under Order XXXIX
HC-KAR
Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC could not be considered. Accordingly, the first appellate Court dismissed the said application.
3. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In view of the limited nature of the directions issued herein, notice to the respondents is unnecessary and is accordingly dispensed with.
5. When the appeal is filed impugning the rejection of the application for temporary injunction, the question of seeking stay of the said order may not arise. When an independent application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in the appeal challenging the rejection of the application for temporary injunction by the Trial Court, the same is required to be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the first appellate Court is directed to consider and dispose of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC within three weeks from the date of placing a copy of this order.
HC-KAR
6. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15