IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 33941 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

MR. NAVEEN BALAKRISHNAN SUGUMARAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SUGUMARAN B., RESIDING AT 4, VA.PA MANGALAM SOMASUNDARAM STREET THIRUVARUR, TAMIL NADU – 610 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MONICA PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHAILESH GOPALAKRISHNA KAMAT AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O GOPALKRISHNA S. KAMATH, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. C-209 SATELLITE TOWNSHIP, PIPELINE ROAD, JEEDIMETIA VILLAGE, HYDERABAD – 500 067 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M 2. MRS. LAKSHMI VAIDHEHI Location: H igh AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS Court of Karnataka D/O PALANLAPPAN, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.34, 4^TH CROSS, 2^ND STREET EXTN., RAINBOW NAGAR, PONDICHERRY – 605 011 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.322, TRINITY APARTMENT, BASAVANPURA, K.R. PURAM BENGALURU – 560 036.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ROHITH R. KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SMT. R. SANKARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 13.10.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 05) IN O.S. NO. 7141/2025 IN I.A. NO.1/2025 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 THEREBY DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT RS.2,84,190/- (RUPEES TWO LAKHS EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY ONLY) AS ARREARS OF RENT WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT RECONSIDERATION OF LA NO.1/2025 WITH DUE HEARING OF THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-A).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

The defendant No.1 in O.S.No.7141/2025 is before this Court, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the application I.A.No.1 filed by the respondent No.1- plaintiff for a direction to the petitioner-defendant No.1 and respondent No.2 - defendant No.2 to deposit a sum of Rs.2,84,190/- was allowed ex-parte by the trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1 - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant No.1 and respondent No.2-defendant No.2 (husband and wife respectively) for possession, arrears of rent etc. Along with the suit, the respondent No.1-plaintiff filed an application I.A.No.1 for temporary mandatory injunction directing the petitioner – defendant No.1 and respondent No.2- defendant No.2 to pay the arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.2,84,190/-. By the impugned ad interim ex-parte order of temporary mandatory injunction, the trial Court allowed the said application by holding as under:

“The suit of the plaintiff is one for delivery of possession from the side of the defendants towards the plaintiff and further also for the arrears of the rent and mean profits. The application was filed u/Sec. 151 of the CPC in order to pass an interim order directing the defendants or any persons claiming under the defendant from depositing the arrears of the rent amounting to Rs.2,84,190/- in the court or pay the same to the plaintiff within the stipulated period. The application is supported by the memorandum of the fact wherein the counsel for the petitioner contended that the defendant No.1 is a tenant under the plaintiff and as per the rent agreement dated 28.10.2022 the defendant No.1 and 2 are in possession of the Schedule property. However, in view of the differences of opinion in between the defendant No. 1 and 2, defendant No.1 has already vacated the premises and further defendant No.2 still in continuation of the Schedule premises. However, has not paid the arrears of the rent in spite of the specific notices. Even she also admitted through e-mail that they will vacate the pre