Karnataka High Court
WP/27789/2026 of SHRI. G. R. SHAMANNA Vs SHRI. NARAYAN. D @ NARAYANAPPA on 2 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010614502026 NC: 2026:KHC:47727 WP No. 27789 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 27789 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI. G.R.SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 27789 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. G.R.SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/A GUDEMARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOLUR HOBLI, PRESENTLY
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 127
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADEEP J.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SHRI. NARAYAN. D @ NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE DODDANARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/A NO.83/4, NARASIMHAIAH COMPOUD,
BENGALURU -560 094
2.
SMT. LAKSHMI L.,
W/O SHRI. NARAYAN. D
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/A NO.83/4, NARASIMHAIAH COMPOUD,
GEDDALAHALLI, 9TH STAGE, RMV LAYOUT,
BENGALURU -560 094
3.
SHRI. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE DODDANARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/A KALLIPALYA VILLAGE,
BEERAVARA POST, SOLUR HOBLI,
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
MAGADI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 127
4.
SHRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY M @ RAJU. M
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
@ MUNISWAMAIAH.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/A NO.59, 3RD CROSS, 2ND STAGE,
VSLN BUILDING, RAMAKRISHNA LAYOUT,
RMV LAYOUT,
BENGALURU -560 094
5.
SHRI. RANJITH. N,
S/O SHRI. NARAYAN.D,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/A NO.83/4, NARASIMHAIAH COMPOUD,
GEDDALAHALLI,
9TH STAGE, RMV LAYOUT,
BENGALURU -560 094
6.
SHRI. RAKSHITH GOWDA,
S/O SHRI. NARAYAN. D,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/A NO.83/4, NARASIMHAIAH COMPOUD,
BENGALURU – 560 094
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED
1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BENGALURU SOUTH
DISTRICT AT MAGADI, IN O.S. NO. 357/2026 DATED 18-08- 2026 AT ANNEXURE- W, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
REFUSAL TO GRANT AN EX-PARTE INTERIM ORDER OF
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ON I.A. NOS.1.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
HC-KAR
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 petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2026 passed in I.A.No.I in O.S.No.357/2026 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, whereby the trial Court had issued an emergent notice on I.A.No.I and suit summons to the defendants, returnable by 20.09.2026.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when an application is filed seeking ad-interim injunction, the trial Court has to consider the same on the merits of the matter. 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 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
HC-KAR
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 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." s
3. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is passing the following order:
ORDER
i. The trial Court shall consider I.A.No.I in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this
HC-KAR
order, notwithstanding the fact that the suit summons is not served on the defendants. ii. The petitioner is at liberty to advance the matter. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45