IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 34024 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHEELA W/O SHUBHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KARIBEERANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 114.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHYA D., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VANITHA DEVI V.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. RAMESH Digitally S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, signed by SUMA B N AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, Location: R/AT KARIBEERANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HIGH COURT OF HOSAKOTE TALUK, KARNATAKA BENGALURU RURAL - 562 114.

…RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.11.2025 ON IA NO. II AT ANNX-J PASSED IN OS NO. 390/2025 BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, HOSAKOTE BENGALURU RURAL.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent/defendant for the reason that in the original suit proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the defendant, notice though ordered is yet to be received and there is no appearance of the defendant before the trial Court.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs. Along with the plaint, he has filed an application Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 seeking for an order of ad interim temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and others claiming through or under him from putting up any further construction or carrying out development activities in Schedule 'C' property. Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of a sale deed, he has produced the RTC extracts to show some portion of the property is still available pursuant to the acquisition by the National Highway Authorities of India. It is his contention that the defendant who has absolutely no manner of right, title or interest is trying to put up illegal construction in the Schedule 'C' property.

4. It is his contention that Schedule 'C' property is a portion of the Schedule 'A' property and Schedule 'A' property is in absolute ownership of the plaintiff. To establish the same he has produced the sale deed. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved for the reason that the trial Court has issued emergent notice and not passed any order for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction. The petitioner/plaintiff has also produced certain photographs to show that there is some construction activity already going on in Schedule 'C' property to an extent of first floor already constructed along with the compound wall and some activities in the ground floor. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate that some protection would have to be given to the plaintiff till the appearance of the defendant, failing which the very purpose of initiation of the suit gets frustrated.

5. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Petition is allowed (ii) An ad-interim order of status quo is granted. Both the parties to maintain the same, as per the photographs shown and produced in this petition, till the next date of hearing in the trial Court.

(iii) It is open to the defendant to file the objection statement and agitate the matter before the trial Court on the application file and Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2.

(iv) The trial Court is at liberty to proceed further without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. The observations, if any, made by this Court is only for the purpose of issuance of an ad- interim order of status-quo to be maintained with regard to construction activities in the Schedule 'C'

property.

Petitioner to comply Order XXXIX Rule 3.

Sd/-

(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20