Karnataka High Court
WP/15239/2023 of RAJACHARI Vs RAJEGOWDA on 3 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010359492023 NC: 2026:KHC:48069 WP No. 15239 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15239 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. RAJACHARI S/O LATE ANNAIAHCHARI, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 15239 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
RAJACHARI
S/O LATE ANNAIAHCHARI,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/O MUNDOORU VILLAGE AND POST,
SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602.
2.
KRISHNACHARI
S/O LATE ANNAIAHCHARI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O MUNDOORU VILLAGE AND POST,
SALIGRAMA HOBLI,K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MAHANTESH S. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
RAJEGOWDA
S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O MUNDOORU VILLAGE AND POST,
SALIGRAMA HOBLI,K.R.NAGAR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602.
Digitally
signed by
ANNAPURNA
G
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
YOGESHA
S/O RAJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O MUNDOORU VILLAGE AND POST,
SALIGRAMA HOBLI,
K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM K R NAGARA IN MA NO.06/2022 DATED
27/06/2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G TO THE WP AND
FURTHER PLEASE TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC K R NAGARA IN OS NO
348/2021 ORDER ON IA NO1/2021 DATED 26/09/2022
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F TO THE WP AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
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
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.06.2023 passed in M.A.6/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajasagara, Mysuru. (hereinafter referred to as 'appellate Court' for short).
2. Heard Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha, counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Mahantesh S Hosmath, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. P Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the records.
3. The petitioners have filed suit in O.S.No.348/2021 against the respondents herein seeking judgment and decree of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the application for temporary injunction is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') which came to be allowed by the trial
HC-KAR
Court on 26.09.2022 restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till disposal of the suit. The defendants assailed the order of granting temporary injunction before the appellate Court in MA.6/2022. The appellate Court vide order dated 27.06.2023 allowed the appeal by setting aside the order dated 26.09.2022 passed in O.S.No.348/2021 by the trial Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for both sides submits that now the matter is set down for trial and this Court vide order dated 26.07.2023 has ordered the parties to maintain status-quo and the same order is in force till this date and sought to continue the same till disposal of the suit.
5. Considering the aforesaid submission, I am of the view that instead of recording the finding on the correctness of the impugned order, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the parties to
HC-KAR
maintain status-quo with regard to the aforesaid suit schedule property till disposal of the suit and thereby, the ends of justice would be met.
6. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The writ petition stands disposed of.
2. The parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to the possession of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34