##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17480 WP No. 12857 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

WRIT PETITION NO.12857 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. M.B. DAYANAND, S/O S. BASAVARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

NO.323, KALLESHWARA NILAYA, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS ROAD,

BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA, T. DASARAHALLI,

BENGALURU-560005.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.S. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. HOSALAIAH, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M S/O LATE BHADRIAIAH, Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

COURT OF MATHAHALLI VILLAGE, KARNATAKA MATHAHALLI POST,

DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562123.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH JUDGEMENT DATED 05.07.2021 IN M.A.NO.14/2020 PASSED BY HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

NELAMANGALA, ANNEXURE-A.

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17480 WP No. 12857 of 2021

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

05.07.2021 in M.A.No.14/2020 by the II Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Nelamangala (for short ‘Appellate Court’).

2. Sri T.S. Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for permanent injunction and in the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed, which was considered by the Trial Court and passed detailed order restraining the respondent from obstructing the use of schedule ‘B’ property, which is claimed as a pathway. It is submitted that the Appellate Court under the impugned order has recorded an incorrect finding that the petitioner has not arrayed the Government as a party, as the plaint indicates that the schedule ‘B’ property is a Government property and until the maintainability of the suit is decided, the Trial Court ought not to have granted temporary injunction. It is submitted that the finding of the Appellate Court is uncalled for, as on satisfying

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17480 WP No. 12857 of 2021

HC-KAR

the prima facie case made out by the plaintiff, the Trial Court granted injunction. It is submitted that this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo vide order dated 19.07.2021 and the said order may be continued till disposal of the suit, so that the parties would adduce the evidence and assist the Court

in deciding the suit.

3. Per contra, Sri Chokkareddy, the learned counsel

for the respondent/defendant supports the order of the Appellate Court and submits that the plaint averments indicate that the schedule ‘B’ property is a Government property and without making the Government a party, seeking any relief would not arise. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the revenue records indicate that it is a “Sarkari Palu” and hence, the plaintiff is required to establish the maintainability of the suit before the Trial Court and until the maintainability is decided, there cannot be any injunction and hence, seeks to dismiss the writ petition. He fairly submits that the suit is of the year 2020 and the respondent being the owner of ‘B’ schedule property, these proceedings are creating obstruction for the respondent from

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17480 WP No. 12857 of 2021

HC-KAR

enjoyment of the property and hence, a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in a time-bound manner by continuing the status quo order as granted by this

Court.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and

meticulously perused the material on record.

5. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.170/2020

against the respondent for permanent injunction seeking a restrained order against the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s ingres