IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.28497 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.ALEMADA K HARSHA S/O LATE A C KAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

2. SMT.ALEMADA THARA HARSHA W/O SRI A K HARSHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

3. SRI ALEMADA LILLY KALAPPA W/O LATE KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT MATHOOR VILLAGE, PONNAMPET POST, HUDIKERE HOBLI, PONNAMPET TALUK KODAGU 571 213.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed AND:

by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA 1. A M MONNAIAH SREENATH S/O LATE A P MACHAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS KARNATAKA R/AT MUGUTAGERI VILLAGE PONNAMPET POST, HUDIKERI HOBLI PONNAMPET TALUK KODAGU 571 213.

2. ALEMADA G DEVAIAH S/O LATE A GANAPATHI AGED 69 YEARS

3. SRI MANIYAPENDRA RAVI DEVAIAH S/O SRI DEVAIAH AGED 63 YEARS R-2 and R-3 ARE R/AT MATHOOR VILLAGE PONNAMPET POST, HUDIKERI HOBLI PONNAMPET TALUK KODAGU 571213.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RANJAN KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.08.2025 PASSED IN M.A.NO.1/2025 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT VIRAJPET AS PER ANNEXURE-A, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2025 ON I.A.NO.II PASSED IN O.S.NO.61/2024 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PONNAMPET, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL IN MA NO. 1/25 AS PER ANNX-K.

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 petitioners and learned counsel for respondents.

2. The present petition is filed by the defendant Nos.1,2 and 4 being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 23.8.2025 passed in M.A. No.1/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Virajpet, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and confirming the order dated 11.2.2025 on I.A. No.II filed under Order - XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.

No.61/2024

3. The respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.

No.61/2024 for the following reliefs:

a) To declare the suit-B schedule property is the easement of necessity to plaintiff and free usage for all purpose.

b) Mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove barbed wire fence and other impediments from the suit-B schedule property and allow plaintiff for free use of suit-B schedule property for free access, c) Pass an order of mandatory Injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants or anybody else claiming under or through, with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint-A and B schedule properties.

d) Cost of the suit.

e) With such other relief or reliefs which the Hon'ble court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case in the due course.

4. At this stage, it is also useful to refer to the Schedule -

B to the plaint, which reads as under:

"Schedule B A 14 feet width and nearly 1000 feet length road connecting the plaintiff's establishments, turning left from Ponnampet-Kanoor-Kutta main road, passing through sy.no 24, sy.no 50/3, sy.no 50/1 and sy.no 51/1 of Mugatageri village, Hudikeri Hobli, Ponnampet taluk, Kodagu district.

The suit-B schedule property is identified clearly as per the survey sketch produced herewith as Annexure-C."

5. An application - I.A. No.II came to be filed under Order - XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff before the trial Court seeking an order of Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants from blocking the peaceful usage and enjoyment of the suit 'B' schedule property and thereby direct the defendants to remove the impediments put along side and across the 'B' schedule road and enable the plaintiff for free vehicular movement in the 'B' schedule road.

6. The said application filed by the plaintiff came to be allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 11.2.2025. The operative portion of the said orde