IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 109211 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

K.G. SIDDANAGOUDA S/O.

LATE K.G. MAHALINGANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. KANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DIST. 583102.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. K.G. SUNITHA WIFE OF LATE K.G. LINGANAGOUDA DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE K.G. SIDDANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, Digitally RESIDENT OF UJJINI ROAD, signed by YASHAVANT YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR B.D.C.C. BANK BUILDING, NARAYANKAR Date:

2026.0 2.12

10:48:34 KANAHOSALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, +0530 VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583102, 2. K.G. CHANDRASHEKHARA GOUDA S/O. LATE K.G. SIDDANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. UJJINI ROAD, KANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE IN KUDLIGI TALUK-583102, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.

3. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, D.C. OFFICE, DAM ROAD, HOSAPETE CITY, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583102.

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, BALLARI CITY, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583102.

5. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, KUDLIGI, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583102.

6. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HOSAHALLI, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583102.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2, R3, R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED (UNREPRESENTED);

SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2025 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI IN M.A.NO.06/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.379/2023. B) ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.II in MA No.6/2025, dated 14.11.2025 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudgli, the plaintiff is before this Court.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a declaration that he has a right to easement in respect of the suit scheduled property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. The said application came to be allowed by order dated 25.01.2025, whereby the defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s usage of the suit scheduled property until disposal of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 herein, who is defendant No.1 in the suit, had filed MA No.6/2025, which came to be allowed by order dated 14.11.2025. While allowing the MA, the appellate Court had observed that as per the documents submitted by defendant No.1, it clearly show that there is an alternative way to reach the plaintiff’s property from the National Highway, which runs from Hosapete-Chithradurga and another way as per the approved plan by the Town and Village Planning Department in respect of the suit schedule ‘B’ property. Hence, the plaintiff failed to establish that there is no alternative way to reach his land. But the defendants prima facie established that there is an alternative way to reach the land of the plaintiff. Hence, without establishing the right of easement, he cannot seek the relief of permanent injunction and also interim relief of temporary injunction. Hence, the plaintiff failed to prove that there is a prime facie case to grant ad-interim temporary injunction against the defendant No.1. The appellate Court also observed that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants rather than the plaintiff and the plaintiff failed to establish the right of easement. The appellate Court had further held that considering the documents available on record, even on failure of the plaintiff to establish that there are no alternative