IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.29491 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. KALAVATHI.R.

D/O. SRI.MUNIRANGAIAH, W/O. SRI. S.NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, SAROJ ENCLAVE, BEN SATHYA LAYOUT, GEDDALAHALLI, KALYANA NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, BANGALORE - 560043.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR 1. SRI. MUNIRANGAIAH, SUBRAMANYA GUPTA S/O. LATE GUTHAIAH, SREENATH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. SMT.MUDDU RANGAMMA, D/O. LATE GUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 3. SRI. NAGARAJAPPA, S/O. LATE GUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 4. SRI. NARAYANAPPA, S/O. LATE GUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 5. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE GUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT:

ADDE VISHWANATHAPURA HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT.

PIN CODE: 562169 …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION BY WAY OF WRIT TO DISPOSE OF THE PENDING INTERIM APPLICATION i.e., IA -I IN OS NO. 945/2024 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME BY ALLOWING THIS WP. AS PER ANNEXURE-B 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

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.945/2024. Along with the plaint, the petitioner-plaintiff had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as I.A.No.I to consider the application for grant of ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties.

2. The trial Court issued summons to the defendants.

Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were placed ex-parte and defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 were represented through their counsel and they did not file objections, neither did they file the written statement. However, the trial Court instead of proceeding to pass orders on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, has proceeded to post the matter for recording of evidence of plaintiff. The plaintiff aggrieved by the said order of posting the matter for recording evidence of plaintiff and not passing order on application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, is before this Court. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to issue direction to the trial Court to consider the application-I.A.No.I and pass suitable orders. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents as no adverse orders is passed by this Court and no relief against the respondents is sought by the petitioner.

3. It is a fact that the petitioner has filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, which has not been considered by the trial Court by either allowing it or rejecting it. On the contrary, despite appearance of the defendants and objection statement not being filed, the matter is posted for recording evidence of plaintiff.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the defendants are trying to alienate and encumber the portion of the suit schedule properties. Hence, seeks interference and indulgence of this Court for a direction to the trial Court to pass orders on application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

5. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule

1 and 2 of CPC in a suit, it becomes obligatory on the trial Court to pass orders on the said application within a specified time as per the provisions of the CPC and thereafter proceed further in the matter. It is also incumbent on the Court to protect the interest of the plaintiff so that the property can be preserved in the status as it is rather than alienation and creating multiplicity of proceedings.

6. Under the circumstances, in the present case, the trial Court having not proceeded to pass orders on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of