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) 442336

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
BASHEER S M. – Appellant
Versus
P B MOHAMMAD KUNHI – Respondent
WP 28271/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 28271 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. BASHEER S M.

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

S/O. LATE SULAIMAN BEARY

R/AT MATA HOUSE

KADESHWALYA VILLAGE

AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK

D.K.DISTRICT - 574 325.

2. ABDUL RAHIMAN

S/O. LATE ABOOBAKKAR

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

R/AT MATA HOUSE

KADESHWALYA

VILLAGE AND POST

BANTWAL TALUK

D.K. DISTRICT - 574 325.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed

by

GAVRIBIDANUR AND:

SUBRAMANYA

GUPTA

SREENATH P. B. MOHAMMAD KUNHI

Location: HIGH

S/O. LATE BAPA MONU BEARY

COURT OF

KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

R/AT BAMBILA HOUSE TEKKARU

VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK

D.K.DISTRICT -574241.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2025 IN MA.NO.9/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL, D.K.DISTRICT, 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 petitioners and learned counsel for respondent.

2. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking following reliefs:

"i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Order dated:20.08.2025 in MA.No.9/2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K.District, vide Annexure-A., ii. Issue a writ of Certiorari, quashing the Order dated:25.07.2025 on IA No.2 in OS.No.425/2023 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K., vide Annexure-B, iii. Issue any other writ of direction to meet the ends of justice."

4. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.425/2023 against the defendants for permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein he sought for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men, servants etc., from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of schedule A property pending disposal of the suit. The affidavit was also annexed to the said application.

5. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court has allowed the said application and granted an interim order restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of schedule A property till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by which, the defendants have questioned the said impugned order before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada in M.A.No.9/2025.

6. After hearing the submissions put forth by the learned counsels for parties, the first Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved by which, the defendants are before this Court.

7. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for defendants that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have totally ignored the antecedent of the case before the revenue Authority, the mahazar that was drawn and the application that was filed, which was admitted by the plaintiff in his plaint to that effect. The plaintiff had filed an application seeking possession from the defendants before the revenue Authorities. However, the statement is made that the plaintiff was thereafter in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the basis of RTC extracts and other revenue records.

8. It is the grievance of the learned counsel for defendants that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in not looking into the revenue records and the statement of the plaintiff. However, the trial Court had granted an interim order and the same has been confirmed by the first Appellate Court, which is contrary to the material place

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