Karnataka High Court
WP/24961/2026 of C.R.VIJAYA KUMAR Vs BALAJI SHELTERS on 12 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010550882026 NC: 2026:KHC:42760 WP No. 24961 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.24961 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. C. R. VIJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE K. RAMEGOWDA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO.24961 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
C. R. VIJAYA KUMAR
S/O LATE K. RAMEGOWDA
AGED 65 YEARS
2.
SHOBHA V. KUMAR
W/O C.R. VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED 60 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.116,
SRI. ANJANEYA KRUPA,
6TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN,
BIKASIPURA,
NEAR ISRO LAYOUT BUS STAND,
J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.O. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
BALAJI SHELTERS
(A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SY.NO.52/1
OF SADARAMANAGALA VILLAGE,
K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 067
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
RAMESH
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
RAMESH
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER OF
BALAJI SHELTERS
3.
S. VENKATESH
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS
AGE MAJOR
4.
N. NAGARAJU
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS
AGE MAJOR
5.
MURALI
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS
AGE MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE THE
PARTNERS OF BALAJI SHELTERS
(A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SY.NO.52/1
OF SADARAMANAGALA VILLAGE,
K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 067
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
01.08.2026 ISSUING ONLY EMERGENT NOTICE TO THE
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ON I.A NO.1 FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 & 2 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S NO.1615/2026 PASSED BY THE
HON’BLE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE - A AND MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT ORDER OF
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5
HC-KAR
FROM PUTTING UP FURTHER CONSTRUCTION OF ANY MANNER
PENDING DISPOSAL OF O.S.NO.1615/2026 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE HON’BLE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
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 present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 01.08.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.1615/2026 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court had issued emergent notice on I.A.No.1 and suit summons to the defendants without passing any merits of the matter.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that when an application is filed, the trial Court has to pass orders on the merits of the matter and cannot issue emergent notice. 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-
HC-KAR
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 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
HC-KAR
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.1 in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, notwithstanding the fact that the suit summons is not served on the respondents. 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.: 33