The captioned writ petition is filed by the

petitioner - plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order

dated 21.04.2022, wherein the learned Judge has

ordered to hear the application filed in I.A.No.1 along

with main suit.

2. The petitioner - plaintiff has filed a suit for

injunction simplicitor seeking permanent injunction

against the defendants. The subject matter of the suit

is property bearing Site No.1, Khata No.34/4/1,

carved out of property No.34/4 measuring east to

west 90 feet and north to south 30 feet. The present

petitioner - plaintiff is asserting that he is in exclusive

possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule

4

property. By basing his right under the registered

sale

deed

dated

12.03.2021

executed

by

one

Smt.Deepika, the petitioner - plaintiff has narrated

flow of title pertaining to the suit schedule property at

paragraph Nos.1 to 6. The petitioner - plaintiff has

specifically pleaded that the suit schedule property

was originally owned by one Sandhyagappa. The

present petitioner - plaintiff has pleaded that he died

testate by bequeathing the suit schedule property to

his son namely Thomas under Will dated 05.06.1999.

The petitioner - plaintiff further pleads that the said

Thomas acquired right and title on the basis of the

Will dated 05.06.1999, who in turn, has gifted to his

son namely John under registered Gift Deed dated

06.06.2019. The plaintiff further pleaded that after

the death of Thomas, his wife Smt.Deepika inherited

the suit schedule property. The petitioner - plaintiff is

asserting title and exclusive possession on the basis of

5

the registered sale deed executed by the said

Smt.Deepika on 12.03.2021. The petitioner - plaintiff

placing reliance on these prima-facie materials sought

interim injunction by filing interim application in

I.A.No.1/2022.

3. The defendants have not chosen to contest

the proceedings and they are placed exparte. The

petitioner - plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order

dated 07.03.2022, wherein the learned Judge issued

emergent notice and declined to grant interim

injunction, preferred a writ petition before this Court.

This Court dismissed the writ petition, but, however,

with a direction to the Court below to decide the

application

and

record

the

reasonings

while

considering the application filed in I.A.No.1/2022

under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.,

6

4. The grievance of the petitioner - plaintiff

before this Court that contrary to the directions issued

by this Court in W.P.No.6028/2022, the learned Judge

by the impugned order 21.03.2022 has declined to

grant any relief and consequently, has ordered to

consider the application filed in I.A.No.1/2022 along

with the main suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said

order, the captioned writ petition is filed before this

Court.

Heard

Sri.Harish

N,

learned

counsel

appearing for Sri.Hemanth Kumar G.M, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner - plaintiff.

6. Having regard to the fact that the

respondents - defendant are placed exparte, this

Court is of the view that there is no need to issue

notice to the respondents. This Court is also aware of

the fact that the order that would be passed by this

7

Court

would

not

prejudice

the

respondents

-

defendants.

7. On bare perusal of the order under challenge,

this Court would find that the impugned order passed

by the learned Judge holding that the application filed

under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC., has to be heard

along with the main suit is capricious and the said

order is not at all sustainable. The petitioner - plaintiff

has pleaded that there is a threat of dispossession. If

the petitioner - plaintiff is alleging that there is

likelihood of the defendants interfering with his

peaceful possession and to substantiate his case, has

produced prima-facie materials, this Court is unable to

understand as to why the learned Judge has declined

to decide the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 &

2 of CPC., In a bare suit for injunction, if interim

injunction is sou