Karnataka High Court
WP/24820/2026 of SMT. VANISHREE SUBRAMANIAM Vs SRI. K MOHAN on 19 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010546962026 NC: 2026:KHC:44771 WP No. 24820 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 24820 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. VANISHREE SUBRAMANIAM D/O.LATE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 24820 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VANISHREE SUBRAMANIAM
D/O.LATE R.KRISHNAMURTHY,
W/O SUBRAMANIAM A.N.,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.33A, GF1, SINGAPORE GARDEN,
GUBALAGATE, OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 062.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. K MOHAN
S/O LATE R. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 62/1,
RAJSHREE, 3RD FLOOR, S. KARIYAPPA ROAD,
BASAVANGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004
…RESPONDENT
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE
CONSTITUTION
OF
INDIA
PRAYING
TO
(A)ISSUE
SUITABLE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE HONBLE XIV TH
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF NON-ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION OS NO. 3732/2025 DATED 05/06/2025 IN
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
ANNEXURE- A AND ALLOW THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION
U/O 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC IN IA NO. 1/25 ANNEXURE-G
AND THUS RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT FROM ALIENATING
THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY.
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 petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed on IA Nos.1 and 2 dated 05.06.2025 in O.S. No.3732/2025 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the Trial Court has simply issued emergent notice on IA Nos.1 and 2 and also suit summons to the defendants. The application filed seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property has not been considered by the Trial Court since 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when an application is filed seeking an ad-interim injunction, the Trial Court has to pass orders on the merits of the matter and cannot issue suit summons.
HC-KAR
2. He has relied on order passed by 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 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
HC-KAR
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."
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. Considering the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
HC-KAR
W.P.No.35488/2025(GM-CPC) dated 09.12.2025, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the Trial Court to dispose of the IA Nos.1 and 2 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, notwithstanding the fact that the suit summons were not served on the defendants. ii. Petitioner is at liberty to advance the matter before the Trial Court. iii. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9