Karnataka High Court
WP/15180/2023 of MR. NAUSHED AHMED Vs MR. IRSHAD AHMED PASHA on 3 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010357552023 NC: 2026:KHC:48068 WP No. 15180 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. 15180 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. NAUSHED AHMED AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O
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. 15180 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. NAUSHED AHMED
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O NAZEER AHMED,
1597, 7TH CROSS,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. THRIMURTHY K P.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MR. IRSHAD AHMED PASHA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O NAZEER AHMED,
C/O SRI ABDUL ZAHEER
@ NANEJAN,NO.1, FIRST FLOOR,
9TH MAIN ROAD,YARABANAGAR,
BANASHANKARI II STATGE,
BENGALUGU - 560 070.
2.
MR. MUMSHD AHMED
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O NAZEER AHMED,
M/S BATO LOGISTICS,NO.23/25,
37TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS,
NALA ROAD, SUDHAMANGAR,
Digitally
signed by
ANNAPURNA
G
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
BANGALORE - 560 027.
3.
MR. IMRAN PASHA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O NAZEER AHMED,
NO.59, UNIT NO.105,
MONEY POINT BUILDING,
K.H. DOUBLE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
4.
MR. IFRAN AHMED
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O NAZEER AHMED,
R/A 16/1, 1ST FLOOR,
R.V. ROAD CROSS,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
5.
MR. PAVAN
MAJOR, PARTNER,
M/S GO ACTIV INTERNATIONAL,
GROUND FLOOR, 16/1,
R.V. ROAD CROSS,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
6.
THE CHAI PLOT
(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S SOUTH POINT),
PROPRIETOR,GROUND FLOOR, 16/1,
R.V. ROAD CROSS,BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
7.
MR. PRASHANTH RAO,
MAJOR,
S/O MAHABALA RAO,
PROPRIETOR,
HC-KAR
M/S GREAT INDIA ROLLS,
(IS IN OCCUPATION OF 2 SHOPS)
GROUND FLOOR, 16/1,R.V. ROAD
CROSS,BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SRI. KRISHNA REDDY B.C, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. S.C. SURY KANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2023 NOTICE TO R6 AND R7 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.
03.06.2023 PASSED ON IA NO. 2 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
UNDER ORDER 151 OF CPC BY HONBLE XXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN OS NO. 2398/2022 AS
PER ANNX-K AND ALLOW IA NO. 2 DIRECTING DEFENDANTS
NO. 5 TO 7 TO DEPOSIT THE RENTS PAYABLE BY THEM BEFORE
THE COURT BELOW AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
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 03.06.2023 passed in O.S.No.2398/2022 by the Court of XXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH.No.6) (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short).
HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri. Thrimurthy K P, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri. Srinivas Bhat, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1,2 and 4, Sri. Krishna Reddy B C, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri. C S Surya Kanth, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the records.
3. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.2398/2022 seeking relief of partition, separate possession and consequential relief. In the said suit, the plaintiff had filed application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking prayer to grant the exparte order of temporary injunction directing defendant Nos.5 to 7 to deposit the rents payable by them in respect of rented shop in Suit Schedule 'C' property before the Court pending disposal of the suit. The said application was opposed by the defendants and the trial Court in the impugned order rejected the application.
4. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff had made bald assertion that defendant Nos.5 to 7 are paying the
HC-KAR
rents. However, no material is placed on record to indicate the same. The trial Court considering the said aspect as well as the aspect of settlement deed said to have been entered between the parties, rejected the application. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order.
5. It is also to be noticed that the plaintiff had failed to establish that defendant Nos.5 to 7 are the tenants in the suit schedule property and paying rent to other defendants. In the absence of such material, seeking prayer to deposit the rent would not arise. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.
Pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32