Karnataka High Court
WP/27981/2026 of SMT. SHANTHAMMA Vs T B SOMASHEKARAJU on 3 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010618922026 NC: 2026:KHC:48056 WP No. 27981 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 27981 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE THIRUVENKATAIAH
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 27981 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O LATE THIRUVENKATAIAH
D/O LATE MAHALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/A: KENCHAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KADAGA POST,
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2.
SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANAMURTHY,
D/O LATE MAHALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/A: MAVINAKERE,
SANYASIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
3.
SMT. YASHODAMMA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A: MAVINAKERE,
SANYASIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4.
SMT. BHARATHI,
W/O LATE CHANNAKESHAVA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A: MAVINAKERE,
SANYASIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
5.
SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O LATE RAMANNA @ JAYARAMA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/A: MAVINAKERE,
SANYASIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SWAROOP S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
T B SOMASHEKARAJU
S/O LATE T.B BHEEMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2.
T. B VENKATESH RAJ
S/O LATE T.B BHEEMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
3.
SATESH
S/O T. B SOMASHEKARAJU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
4.
KIRAN
S/O T. B VENKATESH RAJ
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALL RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT
TEGUR VILLAGE,
RAMPURA POST,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
HC-KAR
ORDER DATED 29.08.2026 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU ) IN
O.S. NO. 439/2026 IN SO FAR AS ISSUING EMERGENT NOTICE
TO THE RESPONDENTS AND ALSO CONSEQUENTLY GRANT AD- INTERIM
EX-PARTE
INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING
THE
RESPONDENTS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE POSSESSION
OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY UNTIL THE DISPOSAL OF
APPLICATION IN IA NO.1 UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2
OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONER, BY ISSUING A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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 petitioners are before the Court, aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2026 passed in O.S. No. 439/2026 by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamangaluru, wherein the Court has issued suit summons to the defendants on I.A. No. 1, filed seeking an ad interim injunction.
2. The petitioners before this Court are the plaintiffs in the suit. They have filed the suit seeking a permanent injunction.
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when an application is filed seeking an ad interim injunction, the Court has to consider the same in accordance with law, and the Court cannot issue suit summons. He has relied on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dhalitha Vividha Gramodyoga Kaigarika Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha (R) Vs Samatha Sainika Dal SSD, arising out of W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC) dated 09.12.2025, whereby the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as follows: "6. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent-defendant for the reason that the petitioner is questioning the non- passing of the order on the application in IA.No.1, wherein the trial Court has neither passed any order for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction or for rejection of the same.
7. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff along with the plaint seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, it becomes the duty and obligation of the trial Court to consider the same and pass suitable orders either granting or rejecting the ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. This Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr.Shashidhara A.V. in WP.No.33725/2025 [Decided on 17.11.2025] has made certain observations and guidelines as to how the trial Court has to deal with an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It is not optional for the trial Court to merely issue notice to
HC-KAR
the defendant before passing an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendant.
8. The trial Court will also have to consider judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993)3 SCC 161, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that notice is yet to be served on the defendant. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the trial Court to decide the application either granting or rejecting an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction by providing proper reasons."
4. Considering the submission of the learned counsel and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The trial Court shall consider I.A.No.1 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, notwithstanding the fact that the notices are not served on the respondents.
HC-KAR
ii. The petitioners are at liberty to advance the matter before the trial Court. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26