IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 30039 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. GOWTHAMI W/O GANESHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT SULIBELE VILLAGE SULIGBELE HOBLi, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISRT 562 129 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT MOVVAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY (MARAVE)

S/O LATE MARAVE MUNISHAYMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

2. SRI MOHITH @ MONESH S/O LATE MARAVE NARAYANASWAMY Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS by GAVRIBIDANUR RESIDING AT ASIDE TO SUBRAMANYA GUPTA BEERESWARA KALYANA MANTAPA SREENATH SULIBELE VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI Location: HIGH COURT OF HOSAKOTE TALUK KARNATAKA BENGALURU RURAL DIST 562 129 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2025 PASSED ON IA. NO 1 BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSKOTE (TRIAL COURT) IN O.S.NO. 319/2025 (ANNEXURE-G), INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO REFUSAL TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION VESTED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 CPC.

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 any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent as the order that is questioned is non passing of an ad-interim exparte order of temporary injunction on the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court in Original Suit in O.S.No.319/2025.

3. A suit came to filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for other consequential relief. Along with plaint, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C came to be filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for an ad-interim exparte order of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit.

4. It is a case of the petitioner/plaintiff that she is the absolute owner, in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.4/9 measuring 2 guntas situated at Arasanahalli Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff that, the defendants are trying to illegally block the road/route to have access to the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the defendants are threatening the plaintiff to destroy the structure of suit schedule property which has been put up by the plaintiff. Therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved by the threat caused by the defendants , has approached the trial Court by filing the suit and has filed an application for an order of an ad-interim exparte order of temporary injunction. The plaintiff has produced the registered sale deed and also the photographs to show that the structure put up in the suit schedule property and on the right side of the structure towards the western side of the construction, there is a road towards the village.

6. Having perused the averments made and the photographs produced along with this petition, it appears that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having put up construction which is currently visible. She has also produced RTC and Form No.10 to show that she is the owner, in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. However, it appears that the defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff's property and also they have encroached upon the plaintiff's property.

7. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for an ad-interim exparte order of temporary Injunction, it becomes the duty and obligation of th