IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3078 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI YOGESH J S/O LATE JAVARAI, AGED 32 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF IIFA LANCASTER COLLEGE, R/AT NO.1128, 4TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, BSK 1ST STAGE, SRINIVASANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 050 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT S SANDYA W/O LATE D GANESH, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, 80' RING ROAD, Digitally signed by SHIVANNA JYOTHI LAYOUT, GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA NEAR BJP OFFICE, NAGADEVANAHALLI, GUPTA JNANABHARATHI POST, BENGALURU-56.

SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF 2. M/S SIDDAGANGA URBAN KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SHS BUILDING, B H ROAD, TUMKURU-572102 BY ITS CEO, SRI. SHIVAPRAKASH H K, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ROHIT KASHYAP.M.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R1 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORAN DECLARING THAT THE ORDER DT.15.11.2024 PASSED ON MEMO DT. 21.08.2024 AS WELL AS ON ISSUE NO.2 IN O.S.NO. 4139/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XLII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-43) REJECTING THE MEMO DT.21.08.2024 AND FURTHER HOLDING THAT THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF SEEKING DECLARATION AND CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF INJUNCTION IS HEREBY NOT MAINTAINABLE AS IT IS HIT BY SEC. 34 OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 (ANNEXURE- A), IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND HENCE SET ASIDE THE SAME.

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

Learned counsel Sri.Manjunath K.S. for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri.Rohit Kashyap M.S. for respondent No.2.

Respondent No.1 though served is unrepresented.

2. This petition is filed by the plaintiff who had initiated a suit in O.S.No.4139 of 2022 for the relief of a right of pre-emption as against the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1, who was the sole defendant as on the date of filing of the suit.

Subsequently during the course of the suit proceedings, plaintiff thought it necessary to implead the respondent No.2 / defendant No.2 - the bank, Siddaganga Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., (for short "the bank").

3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner /plaintiff challenging the order dated 15.11.2024. The petitioner / plaintiff has also questioned another order passed on the very same date on the application filed on the preliminary issue raised by the court after the statements were filed by the defendants No.1 and 2, viz., "Issue No.2: Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit is hit by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act?".

4. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, petitioner / plaintiff filed a memo that he had filed the suit for the relief of right of pre-emption as against the tenant i.e., defendant No.1 and he paid a court fee of Rs.1,82,000/-. It is also contended that he had impleaded the defendant No.2 - bank in the suit proceedings for the bank had initiated proceedings against the defendant No.1 under the SARFAESI Act under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) and in order to protect the interest of the plaintiff, he volunteered to implead the bank as a party to the suit as defendant No.2.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of defendant No.2 - bank was hardly a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- on EMI basis and overall Rs.37,00,000/- against the defendant No.1 who had obtained the loan from the bank. Is further contented by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's stake with defendant No.1 was about Rs.2.81 Crores and having put up educational institutions in the suit schedule property running a P.U. college, degree college and other institutions. Therefore, the right and claim of the petitioner over the respondent No.1 was much higher than the claim made by respondent No.2 - bank against respondent No.1 - the borrower.

6. Theref