IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33620 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O RAMAPPA AND LATE KRISHNAMMA

2. SMT. BASAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS D/O RAMAPPA AND LATE KRISHNAMMA BOTH ARE R/AT NIMBEKAYIPURA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 049.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR AND:

SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF

1. SRI. S VISHWANTAH IYER KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O SUBRAMANYA IYER, R/AT DEVARAYASAMUDRA VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 127.

2. SRI. V.D CHANDRU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE K C DASARATHARAMAIAH SETTY, R/AT NO. 47/1, K R PURAM EXTENSION, K R PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

3. SMT. V.LAKSHMIKALA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O OF V.C. CHANDRU, D/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA SETTY R/AT NO. 47/1, K R PURAM EXTENSION, K R PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

4. SRI. RAMEGOWDA V, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, R/AT BYRANDAHALLI VILLAGE, KYALANURU POST, VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.

5. SRI. MAHESHA G, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O SRI. G. GOPAL, R/AT NO.38, SHRAVANI APARTMENT, 5TH CROSS, NARASIMHAIAH LAYOUT, VIJINAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 016.

…RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 20.09.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN OS.NO. 1773/2025 AS PER ANNX-D IN SO FAR AS DECLINING TO GRANT EXPARTE AD-INTERIM ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT AN ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AS PRAYED IN I.A.NO.2 AT ANNX-C TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME AND ETC., 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 the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. This petition is filed by the plaintiffs in OS.No.1773/2025. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed IA.No.1/2025 seeking an order to restrain the defendants from interfering or trespassing into the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and IA.No.2/2025 is filed for a direction to the defendants to not alienate or encumber the suit schedule property, till disposal of the suit.

3. This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents, who are defendants before the Trial Court for the reason that before the Trial Court they have not been served notice or summons yet though it is issued.

4. The order in question is non issuance of an ad-

interim temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice. The plaintiff has filed the suit as stated earlier for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in which he has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) to grant an ad- interim order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants for the reason that there is an immediate threat of the defendants trying to interfere and trespass into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs' suit schedule property.

5. This petition is restricted to IA.No.2, wherein the plaintiffs have sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the Trial Court has issued emergent notice on IA.Nos.1/2025 and 2/2025, suit summons to the defendants. It has not passed any order for grant or rejection of the ad-interim relief sought for temporary injunction. Since this petition is restricted to IA.No.2/2025 for direction to the defendants to not to alienate the suit schedule property, this Court deems it appropriate to direct th