SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 261766

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
SMT PANKAJA B – Appellant
Versus
SMT V K RAMA – Respondent
WP 36907/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 36907 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PANKAJA B.,

W/O SRI. D RAMASUBBA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

R/A NO.17, GANGA NIVAS,

3RD CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,

SRI. MUNESHWARA LAYOUT,

DODDABOMMASANDRA,

VIDYARANYAPURA POST,

BANGALORE-560 097.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VEERESH M. UPPIN.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT V K RAMA

D/O SRI. V.K.GOPAL,

Digitally signed

by SUMA B N AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, Location: HI GH RESIDENT OF NO.67/C,

COURT OF

KARNATAKA 2ND MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE,

BASAVESHWARANAGAR,

BENGALURU-560 064. 2. MR. S. DOMNIC,

FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT,

RESIDING AT: CHICKBETTAHALLI,

YELAHANKA HOBLI,

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,

BENGALURU-560 064.

3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA.M.

W/O LATE MOHAN RAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 4. SMT. M. SHASHIKALA W/O LATE MOHAN RAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: NOTE KNOWN

5. MR. M.CHANDRASHEKAR RAJU, S/O LATE M.MOHAN RAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: NOTE KNOWN.

6. SRI. M.RAJASHEKAR RAJU, S/O LATE M.MOHAN RAJU, AGE 34 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.15, NEAR SUNRISE ENGLISH SCHOOL ROAD, DODDAKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, BOOPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 094.

7. MR. ABDUL KHAUM SHAIK, S/O MR. ABDUL GHANI SHAIK, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT, R/AT RAJANNA LAYOUT, R.B.I. LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 011.

8. MR. M.YOUSUF KHAN, S/O LATE M. AHMED, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT, R/AT NO. 188, 1ST BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 011.

9. MR. RAHAMATHULLA S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE AGENT, R/AT NO.83/3, GANESH LAYOUT, M.S. PALYA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 094.

10. SRI. DEEPAK RS REDDY S/O LATE RAMASUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 17, GANGA NIVAS, 3RD CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, SRI. MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 097.

…RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2025 IN O.S.NO. 4426/2017 PASSED BY THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (ANNX-H) 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 petitioner.

2. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents who are defendants before the Trial Court.

3. The present petition is filed by plaintiff No.2 seeking the following reliefs;-

"a) Set aside the order dated. 01.12.2025 in O.S.No. 4426/2017 passed by the XVIII Addl. City Civil And Sessions Judge, Bangalore (ANNEXURE -

H).

b) Restore the order of status quo as per the order dated 15.11.2025 in O.S.No. 4426/2017 passed by the XVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (ANNEXURE - F).

c). Allow this writ petition".

4. A short point that arises for consideration in this case is that the plaintiff who had secured an ad-interim order of temporary injunction and later, the same came to be changed into an order of status quo to be maintained by the parties with regard to not to change the nature of suit property was absolute.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that on the next date of hearing i.e., on 01.12.2025, he was held up in registration of a document before the Sub-Registrar. Hence, the plaintiff filed an application seeking adjournment. The Trial Court on 01.12.2025 though allowed the application for adjournment, passed an order that "Interim order is not extended, since the plaintiff has not shown any bonafide as per order dated

15.11.2025", which is questioned before this Court.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is that the order is illegal and perverse as the trial Court has not extended the interim order by itself, as no order was sought to be extended. Primarily, the order dated 15.11.2025 is with rega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top