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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 14795

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
PANDURANGA – Appellant
Versus
NAGARAJ – Respondent
WP 107458/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.107458 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. PANDURANGA S/O. MAHADEV HARIJAN @ KAMBLE, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE

2. SHIVAJI S/O. MAHADEV HARIJAN @ KAMBLE, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE

3. MANJULA W/O. SHIVAJI NAYAR @ HARIJAN @ KAMBLE, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. ANGANWADI WORKER

4. YALLAVVA W/O. MAHADEV HARIJAN @ KAMBLE, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD

5. BHARATI W/O. KALMESH HARIJAN @ KAMBLE, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD Digitally signed by YASHAVANT (ALL RESIDENTS OF ALLIED AREA, NARAYANKAR

3 NUMBER GATE, NEAR ANGANWADI, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.)

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY T.BANGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NAGARAJ D/O. DANIEL DARIYAMLA, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR WATER TANK, MARUTI NAGAR, DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

2. PRASHANT S/O. SUNDAR SHETTY, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. LIG-46, BEHIND POST OFFICE, AMBEVADI, DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

3. SURESH S/O. KAILASCHAND JOSHI, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SARVESHWAR SWEET MART, BARCHI ROAD, CHOUDARI GARTE, DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

4. MARUTI S/O. BALAPPA BANDAVANKAR, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. NEAR KULAGI ROAD, DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

5. ANIL S/O. NAGAPPA KOLUR, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. NEAR ISHWAR TEMPLE, KULAGI ROAD, DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

6. ARATI W/O. ANIL KOLUR, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR ISHWAR TEMPLE, KULGAI ROAD, DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

7. VEDA D/O. ANIL KOLUR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR ISHWAR TEMPLE, KULGAI ROAD, DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYKUMAR S.PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GIRISH V.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION. B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS DATED 01.09.2025 PASSED IN M.A.NOS.3/2025 AND 4/2025 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HALIYAL ANNEXED HEREBY AS ANNEXURE-A AND B. C) RESTORE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2025 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DANDELI IN O.S.NO.290/2024 ANNEXED HEREBY AS ANNEXURE-C. D) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CAV ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in M.A.Nos.3/2025 and 4/2025 dated 01.09.2025 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Haliyal at Haliyal, Uttara Kannada.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the suit. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filed O.S.No.290/2024 against the defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction with respect to the suit property. In the suit, both the plaintiffs and defendants had filed applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC. I.A.No.I is filed by the plaintiffs seeking ad-interim temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from obstructing the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. The defendants had filed I.A.No.V under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC against the plaintiffs seeking ad-interim temporary injunction against the plaintiffs restraining them from obstructing the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the defendants in and over the suit properties by way of construction till the disposal of the suit.

3. The trial Court by order dated 25.02.2025 had dismissed I.A.No.I filed by the plaintiffs and allowed I.A.No.V filed by the defendants. While passing the said order, the trial Court had observed that the plaintiffs’ claims to own the suit property through a Registered Sale Deed and are in actual possession. Afte

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