Karnataka High Court
WP/15185/2022 of SMT. MUSHARATH Vs SMT BIBI SAHIRABANU on 1 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010342162022 NC: 2026:KHC:47583 WP No. 15185 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15185 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MUSHARATH, W/O SRI. FAHIM, AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 15185 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MUSHARATH,
W/O SRI. FAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUSLIMKERI,
BAINDOOR, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 214.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISHA S HEGDE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. BIBI SAHIRABANU,
W/O SRI. MULLA ALI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2.
SMT. FATHIMA SURGA,
W/O SRI. NOORUDDIN MOHEMMAD,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
3.
SRI. MULLA MUKTHYAR AHMED,
S/O SRI. MULLA ALI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
4.
SMT. NASHIKA BANU,
W/O SRI. MULLA BASHA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by
ANNAPURNA G
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
5.
SRI. AKHIYAR AHMED,
S/O SRI. MULLA ALI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
6.
SRI. SARFARAJ,
S/O SRI. MULLA ALI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6 ARE
RESIDENTS OF SHIRUR VILLAGE,
BYNDOOR TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 214.
7.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OP. SOCIETIES AND
RECOVERY OFFICER,
KUNDAPURA DIVISION,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201.
8.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OP. SOCIETIES,
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES,
KUMTA DIVISION, KUMTA TALUK,
NORTH CANARA DISTRICT – 581 343.
9.
THE BHATKAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LIMITED, BHATKAL,
NORTH CANARA DISTRICT – 581 343.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R9
(ABSENT);
NOTICE TO R1 TO R8 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 26.02.2023;
R9 SERVED)
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, DATED 24.06.2022 IN MISC. APPEAL NO.2/2019 IA NO.8 VIDE
ANNX-G, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION 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 24.06.2022 passed on I.A.No.8 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.2/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellate Court' for short).
2. Heard Sri Girisha S Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.9.
3. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.402/2016 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of
HC-KAR
the suit schedule properties and other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') seeking an ad-interim order of temporary injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 6 and the said application was allowed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.7 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, seeking to implead defendant Nos.7 to 9 as parties to the suit. The trial Court, vide order dated 04.10.2017, allowed the application, and respondent Nos.7 to 9 were impleaded in the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff again filed an application in I.A.No.8 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed by the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction to restrain defendant Nos.7 to 9 from alienating the suit schedule properties till disposal of the suit. The trial Court, vide order dated 08.06.2018, allowed the application in I.A.No.8. Defendant No.8 filed I.A.No.11 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC to vacate the
HC-KAR
temporary injunction, which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 11.02.2019.
4. It is to be noticed that defendant No.8, i.e., respondent No.9 herein, had filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.2/2019 challenging the orders passed by the trial Court on I.A.Nos.8 and 11 passed in O.S.No.402/2016. The appellate Court, vide order dated 24.06.2022, allowed the Miscellaneous Appeal.
5. The appellate Court has recorded the reasons that respondent No.9-bank had initiated proceedings against the defendants for recovery of money before respondent Nos.7 and 8 and an award came to be passed, and the said award is sought to be executed. It has also been recorded that two years after of the award, the suit came to be instituted seeking partition. The appellate Court has also recorded that the concept of joint family and allotment of equal share to the plaintiff would not arise as the parties are not Hindus. The appellate Court has also taken note of the initiation of proceedings by
HC-KAR
respondent No.9-bank against the other defendants for recovery of money and vacated the order granting temporary injunction against them.
6. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of the appellate Court. Insofar as the contention that the defendants have settled the dispute with the bank under OTS, it is open for the petitioner to point out the same at the time of final hearing of the suit.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.
8. It is needless to observe that any finding recorded under the impugned order or by this Court is restricted only to deciding the application and not on its merits. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31