Karnataka High Court
WP/25546/2026 of SRI. T. V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs SRI. MUNINANJAPPA REDDY on 17 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010557632026 NC: 2026:KHC:43944 WP No. 25546 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 25546 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. T. V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY T.V. RAMAKRISHNA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 25546 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. T. V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.12-6B, KAMBALAPALLI,
KANDI CHETTY PALLI POST,
HINDUPUR TALUK, KODUR,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT – 506 101
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. ERAPPA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SUSHEELA T. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. MUNINANJAPPA REDDY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ GUNDAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI,
HABBLE POST, KASABA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 560 032
2.
SRI SHIVA MURTHY,
S/O LATE BYRANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.187, GANESHA TEMPLE STREET,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU – 560 032
…RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE XIX
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-
18) TO CONSIDER THE I.A. NO.2 AS PER ANNEXUR-E IN O.S
NO. 3199/2026 AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN VIEW OF
URGENCY AND TO AWARD COSTS OF THIS PETITION.
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 before this Court, questioning the order dated 30.04.2026 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.3199/2026 by the XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court has issued an emergent notice and suit summons on I.A.No.1, which is filed seeking an ad interim injunction. It is submitted that when an application is filed seeking an ad interim injunction, the Court has to pass an order on the merits of the matter and cannot issue suit summons.
2. He has relied on order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dhalitha Vividha Gramodyoga Kaigarika
HC-KAR
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 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
HC-KAR
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. 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 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 I.A No.1 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, notwithstanding the
HC-KAR
fact that the suit summons were not served on the defendants. ii. The petitioner is at liberty to advance the matter. iii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58