IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 67 OF 2021 (IO)

BETWEEN:

1. VENKATESH N. RAO S/O LATE NAGESH SHET AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT "KALASHRI"

OPP. KULAL BHAVAN ROAD THADAMBAIL P.O. SURATHKAL - 575 014 MANGALURU TQ (DK)

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. SUDHAKAR PAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. RASHEEDA MUNAWAR Digitally signed W/O SRI. V.M. MUNAWAR by SHARADAVANI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS B R/AT DOOR NO.16-5-368/3 Location: High Court of VAS LANE, BALMATTA Karnataka MANGALURU - 575 002(DK)

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. YASHIR ALI, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2021 PASSED IN MISC.No.2/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MANGALURU D.K. REJECTING THE MEMO FILED FOR DISMISSAL OF PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri. M. Sudhakar Pai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Yashir Ali, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Defendant in O.S. No.226/2010 who was the respondent in Misc. No.2/2011 is assailing the correctness of the Order dated 26.02.2021 passed in Miscellaneous No.2/2011 in this revision petition.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

3.1 A suit came to be filed with the following relief:

(1) For a judgement and decree thereby adjudging the "Plaint Schedule-I Documents" and prays for consequential as null and void further orders thereby delivering up and canceling the "Plaint Schedule-I Documents". (This relief is valued at Rs.2,12,500/- and a Court Fee of Rs.14,500/-is paid under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act).

(1-A) For a permanent injunction thereby restraining the Defendant No.1 from trespassing into the Plaint Schedule II Property and from causing any damage or waste thereto (this relief is valued at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and Court Fee of Rs.25/- (Rupees Twenty Five only) paid under Section 26(c) of the K.C.F. &

S.V. Act).

(2) For such other further relief, as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble court under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

3.2 In the suit, there was an interim order of injunction against the petitioner. Plaintiff alleged that there was a violation of the interim order and filed a Miscellaneous Petition in Miscellaneous No.2/2011 for taking action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Miscellaneous petition was being contested by the petitioner.

3.3 In the meantime, plaint was rejected by defendant by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court.

3.4 Therefore, a memo came to be filed before the Court in the miscellaneous proceedings to the effect that when the original suit itself is dismissed, there cannot be any further action for the violation of the interim order.

3.5 The said memo was objected to by the plaintiff who was the plaintiff/petitioner in miscellaneous petition.

3.6 Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties by impugned order rejected the memo on payment of Rs.250/-. Correctness of the said order is called in question in this revision petition.

4. Sri. M. Sudhakar Pai, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that all interim orders would come to an end by rejection of the original plaint. Therefore, it should be construed that there was no interim order at all and if there is no interim order at all, then there cannot be any violation/disobedience of the interim order and therefore, petition need to be admitted.

5. Per contra, counsel for respondent supports the impugned order by contending that even in a non maintainable suit, if an interim order is passed, the violation or disobedience of such interim