IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 107912 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. BASAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA HALAGATTI, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE.

2. SRI. FAKKIRAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA HALAGATTI, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 3. SRI. VITHAL S/O SIDDAPPA HALAGATTI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 4. SRI. YALLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI S/O SIDDAPPA HALAGATTI, DCLAHig XAit MNal ADy NR s AK igSA nHT eET dKI M bAy ARNI LKD+ oaa0 crt5ena 3: ta 0 i 2toa0 nk2 :a 5 H, .D1 ig 1hh .a2 Cr1wo 1 ua1 rdt : 4 Bo 1ef :n2c9h AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. CHILAMUR VILLAGE, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 130.

… PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI SHANKARAPPA S/O IRAPPA KUNDRAL, AGE. 85 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHILAMUR VILLAGE, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 130.

2. SRI. LAXMAN S/O NINGAPPA KUNDRAL, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHILAMUR VILLAGE, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 130.

3. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O LAXMAN KUNDRAL, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHILAMUR VILLAGE, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 130.

4. SRI. SHIVANAND S/O LAXMAN KUNDRAL, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHILAMUR VILLAGE, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 130.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALATESH HIPPALI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN M.A. NO.5/2025 DATED 10.10.2025 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RAMDURG, VIDE ANNEXURE-H, AS NULL AND VOID.

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. This petition is filed assailing the order passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.5 of 2025 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg. In terms of the said order, the miscellaneous appeal filed by plaintiffs/respondents is allowed and order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioners/defendants is vacated.

2. The suit is one for bare injunction in respect of property bearing Survey Nos.4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5, 4/7, 4/8, 4/9 and Survey No.4/10 of Chilamur village of Ramdurga taluk.

3. The defendants in the said suit oppose the plaintiffs’

claim and claimed that they have right of way in the suit properties to reach their Survey Nos.4/1, 4/6 & 4/12, through the lands of the plaintiffs.

4. The plaintiffs’ application seeking temporary injunction is rejected. The defendants filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction against the plaintiffs to restrain the plaintiffs from making use of the road passing through the suit properties to reach their R.S.Nos.4/1, 4/6 & 4/12.

5. The trial Court allowed the defendants’ application.

Hence the plaintiffs filed miscellaneous appeal referred to above. The miscellaneous appeal is allowed and consequently the defendants’ application seeking temporary injunction is vacated.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that order rejecting plaintiffs’ application seeking temporary injunction has attained finality and the plaintiffs have not questioned the same and thereafter the Appellate Court could not have taken a different view holding that the defendants is not entitled to the relief of temporary injunction.

7. The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal on two grounds; (a)the defendants could not have filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction; (b)the Village Map discloses existence of an alternative road, as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of injunction.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) of Code of Civil Procedure would provide for an application by the defendants. Merely because the defendants have quoted entire Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Proc