WP/23334/2026 of SMT. S.A. RUKKAMMA Vs SMT. GEETHA RANI on 17 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed on IA Nos.2 and 3 in OS No.4802/2026 dated 16.07.2026 by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-07), whereby the Trial Court failed to consider IA Nos.2 and 3 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking an ad-interim injunction.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has filed suit for declaration of title and injunction. In the said suit, she has filed IA Nos. 2 and 3 seeking an ad-interim injunction against the defendants. The Trial Court without considering IA Nos.2 and 3, has issued suit summons to defendant Nos.4 to 6 and notice on IA Nos.2 and 3.

3. In this regard, reliance is placed on the order passed by a 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 the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as follows:

HC-KAR

"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.

HC-KAR

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."

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

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.2 and 3 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. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26