Karnataka High Court
WP/28590/2026 of SMT. A. SOWMYA Vs VENKATAMMA on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010627662026 NC: 2026:KHC:52178 WP No. 28590 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 28590 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. A . SOWMYA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28590 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. A. SOWMYA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
W/O UMESH AND
D/O K. ASHWATH NARAYANA,
RESIDING AT NO.29, 1ST CROSS,
BALAPPA LAYOUT, BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE - 560 030.
2.
SANJAY SURESHA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O B.S. SURESHA,
RESIDING AT NO.174, BYRATHI,
DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 077.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK MESTA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
VENKATAMMA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
RESIDING AT DODDACHEEMANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110.
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
ANANDAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
RESIDING AT DODDACHEEMANAHALLI,
KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110.
3.
SUJATHA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
RESIDING AT DODDACHEEMANAHALLI,
KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110.
4.
RAMANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
RESIDING AT DODDACHEEMANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110.
5.
MANJULA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DODDACHEEMANAHALLI,
KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110.
6.
CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
RESIDING AT DODDACHEEMANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110.
7.
MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
H/O SUJATHA, RESIDING AT
HC-KAR
DODDACHEEMANAHALLI, KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110.
8.
SUNIL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O SRINIVAS, RESIDING AT
DODDACHEEMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110.
…RESPONDENTS
(VIDE
O/D
22.09.2026
NOTICE
TO
RESPONDENTS
IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
01.08.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI ON I.A NO. II IN O.S NO.
372/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE -A, WHEREBY THE LEARNED II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI WITHOUT
ANY APPLICATION OF MIND AND VERIFYING THE RECORDS, REFUSED
TO
GRANT
EXPARTE
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.
ORDER
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AND AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS ON ONE GROUND THAT NON-ALIENATION CONDITION IS IN FORCE AND ETC,.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The limited grievance in the present writ petition is with regard to the non-granting of an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction and the issuance of notice to the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court, observing that the suit schedule property is agricultural land and that there was no threat of alienation of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the application, issued notice to the defendants without granting any interim ex parte ad interim injunction. The suit has been filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with, trespassing upon, or encroaching upon the suit schedule property and from otherwise interfering with the peaceful possession thereof.
4. Considering the averments made in the petition and the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, it would suffice if both parties are directed to maintain status quo in
HC-KAR
respect of the suit schedule property, insofar as possession and title are concerned, pending consideration of I.A. No.3/2026 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. In view of the above, notice to the respondents is dispensed with. Both parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property until consideration of I.A. No.3/2026 by the trial Court.
6. The trial Court is requested to dispose of the said application within two months from the date of the next hearing, which is scheduled for 09.10.2026.
7. The interim order shall remain in operation until adjudication of the said application.
In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20