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) 439690

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MR. S K ADAM PASHA – Appellant
Versus
MR. SYED GHOUSE – Respondent
WP 33462/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 33462 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

MR. S K ADAM PASHA

S/O MR.S.M. MOHAMMED KHALEEQ

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

R/AT NO.7/A, 3RD C CROSS

NAGAMMA LAYOUT, KAVALBYRASANADRA

R.T. NAGAR POST

BENGLAURU - 560 032.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SYED NASEERUDDIN.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MR. SYED GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

S/O LATE ABDUL LATHIF R/AT NO.399, 2ND CROSS

1ST MAIN, R.K. HEGDE NAGAR

S.R.K. NAGAR POST

Digitally signed

BENGALURU -560 077

by

GAVRIBIDANUR

SUBRAMANYA 2. MRS. SHAKEELA BEGUM,

GUPTA

SREENATH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

Location: HIGH W/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH

COURT OF

R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD

KARNATAKA

NEAR RICHARDS PARK

RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,

BENGALURU -560 084.

3. MRS. MASIHA BEGUM,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

D/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH

R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD NEAR RICHARDS PARK RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU -560 084.

4. MR. SYED ABID, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH RESIDING AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD NEAR RICHARDS PARK RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU -560 084.

5. MR.SYED NASIR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD NEAR RICHARDS PARK RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU -560 084.

6. MR.SYED MANSOOR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE SYED MURTUZA SHAH R/AT NO. G2, COOKSON ROAD NEAR RICHARDS PARK RICHARDS TOWN, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU -560 084.

7. MR.BUQARI SYED NADEEM AHMED AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O. LATE.SRI. SYED RASOOL AHMED R/AT NO.399, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN R.K. HEGDE NAGAR, S.R.K.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU -560 077.

8. SMT.TASNIYA TABASSUM, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS W/O. SRI. BUQARI SYED NADEEM AHMED S/O. LATE. SRI. SYED RASOOL AHMED RESIDING AT NO.399, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN R.K. HEGDE NAGAR, S.R.K. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU -560 077.

…RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXIII Addl. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, M.H. Unit, BENGALURU (CCH No.74) ON LA NO. 1 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC IN O.S NO.26074/2025.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff.

2. Parties shall be referred as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by non-passing of the exparte ad-interim order on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. The trial Court has merely stated in the impugned order that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made out prima facie ground for considering the prayer sought in the application filed under Order - XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC and ordered issuance of emergent notice with suit summons to the respondents/defendants.

4. It is the grievance of learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff that the trial Court has not applied its mind and has mechanically issued emergent notice without considering the material placed on record including the sale deed and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and interference of defendants in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the learned trial Judge has refrained from passing any reasoned order and has merely stated that plaintiff has not made out prima facie ground for considering the prayer. Whereas, plaintiff has made several averments in the plaint and so also in the affidavit accompanying the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC as to the need and urgency for grant of an ad-interim order of Temporary Injunction and that the issuance of notice would cause delay and severe hardship, damage and injury to the person and property of the plaintiff, including the threat of dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Having not considered all

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