IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32163 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI ROBERT S/O. IGNASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1578, OPPOSITE ROYAL MERIDIAN LAYOUT, D.C. HALLI ROAD, BEGUR, BANGALORE-560 068.

2. SRI. GEORGE EDWARD S/O. IGNASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1578, OPPOSITE ROYAL MERIDIAN LAYOUT, D.C. HALLI ROAD, BEGUR, BANGALORE-560 068.

…PETITIONERS Digitally signed by (BY SRI. VIJAY SIMHA M D., ADVOCATE)

GAVRIBIDA NUR SUBRAMANYA AND: GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH SMT SAVITHRI COURT OF W/O. HANUMAIAH, KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 19, NAGAIAHANAPALYA, MARUTI SEVA NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 033.

…RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL IN O.S NO. 751/2025 DATED 15.10.2025 IN I.A NO.1/25 VIDE ANNEXURE A., 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 learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This Court does not find the need to issue notice to the respondent/defendant as no notice was served to the respondent/ defendant before the trial Court in the original suit proceedings after the emergent notice was ordered.

3. The petitioners/plaintiffs are questioning the non-passing of the order on the application filed in IA.No.1 under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC for the grant of an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, her servants, or anybody acting under her from blocking the access road to the plaintiffs' suit schedule property in the interest of justice and equity. 4. The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. Petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for the relief of a permanent injunction against the defendant. Along with the plaint, two applications were filed. IA.No.1 is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 for direction to the defendant to not block the access road of the plaintiffs to the 'B' schedule property, which is their absolute property through the 'A' schedule property, which is the only access to the 'B' schedule property.

5. The trial Court was not convinced by the arguments and the materials placed by the plaintiffs and refrained from passing any order on the application except for the issuance of an emergent notice along with suit summons to the defendants. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court.

6. I have perused the application IA.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. This application is filed specifically for a direction to restrain the defendant or agents or anyone claiming through her from blocking the access road to the plaintiffs' suit schedule property running through 'A' schedule property.

7. In the plaint as well as in the affidavit annexed to the application IA No.1 petitioner has clearly stated in paragraph Nos.10,11,12 in the affidavit annexed to the application IA No.1 as under "10. I further submit the Schedule B property is a land lock property which is situated at the eastern side to the land in Sy No. 180/2 having access through land in Sy No 180/2 to approach main road (Begur -Koppa Road) and there is a common road which runs on the northern edge of the Sy No. 180/2 which is used by the land owners of Sy.No. 180/3 and 180/1 for more than 30 years by plaintiffs and their predecessors in title. The said common road is measuring about 15 feet (North to south) in width and 110 feet in length (East to west) which is more specifically described as Schedule A property and the said passage/path way/road to reach my property i.e., the Schedule - B Property and which is ingress and egress to the Schedule-B Property. Therefore I have to go through S