ASHA vs VISHWANATH

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11061
WP No. 203243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030134792025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 203243 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

ASHA W/O GNYANESHWAR BADURE,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VILLAGE TAMBOL, TQ. NEELANGA, DIST.
LATUR,
NOW AT BEHIND GANESH MANDIR,
BHAGAT VASTI BHOSARI,
PUNE-MAHARASHTRA STATE-411026.

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GHATE KONDIBARAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. VISHWANATH S/O SANGRAM CHINCHOLE,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TUGAON (H), TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-585415.

2. MALLAMMA W/O VISHWANATH CHINCHOLE,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC; HOUSEHOLD AND
AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TUGAON (H), TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-585415.

3. VAIJNATH S/O VISHWANATH CHINCHOLE,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,










Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11061
WP No. 203243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030134792025


R/O. TUGAON (H), TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-585415.

4. SHESHARAO S/O DHONDIBA MELE,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TUGAON (H), TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-585415.

5. SHIVAPPA @ SHIVARAJ S/O GURUNATH SHETTEPPA,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GOUR, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585327.


…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. S. HALALLI , ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 & R5;
R4 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

A) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI/DIRECTION/ORDER,
QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, BHALKI IN OS NO.65/2024 DISMISSING IA NO.V
FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC,
SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION VIDE ORDER DATED
08.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION, AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO.V AND ISSUE DIRECTIONS
TO THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEHKAR POLICE
STATION, TQ. BHALKI, DISTRICT BIDAR TO PROVIDE POLICE
PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF.

B) UNDER THE FACTS, AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE
GROUNDS URGED BY THE PETITIONER /PLAINTIFF AND
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE BY THE TRIAL COURT, THE COST OF
THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION MAY KINDLY BE AWARDED TO
THE PETITIONER /PLAINTIFF AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS
/RESPONDENTS.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11061
WP No. 203243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030134792025


THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff
challenging the order dated 08.09.2025 passed on
I.A. No.V in O.S. No.65 of 2024 filed under Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,
‘the CPC’), by the learned Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Bhalki, praying to grant police aid for
executing the injunction order dated 04.11.2024
passed by the Trial Court on I.A. No.I in O.S. No.65
of 2024.

2. In support of I.A. No.V, the petitioner filed an
affidavit stating that, despite the order of injunction,
the respondents are causing interference in the plaint
schedule property and threatening her. The
petitioner has filed a complaint before the Police,
however, the police have not taken any action, as

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11061
WP No. 203243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030134792025


the dispute involved in the case is of civil nature and
relegated the petitioner to approach the Civil Court.
Hence, the petitioner has filed an application seeking
police protection.

3. The said application was opposed by respondent
No.1 alleging that the suit is filed for partition and
separate possession. It is contended that the
petitioner has got an efficacious remedy under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, as such, the application filed
by the petitioner is not maintainable. Hence, prayed
to reject the application.

4. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, dismissed the application by order dated
08.09.2025.

5. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed this writ
petition.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11061
WP No. 203243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030134792025



6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, granted an order of temporary injunction
restraining the respondents from interfering with the
petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over
the suit schedule property pending disposal of the
suit, by order dated 04.11.2024. He submits that the
respondents disobeyed the said order passed on I.A.
No.1. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Police
to take appropriate action against the respondents.
However, the police have issued an endorsement
stating that the dispute involved is of civil nature and
hence, refused to provide police protection. On
these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned order and submits that the petitioner has

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11061
WP No. 203243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030134792025


got an efficacious remedy provided under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, as such, the Trial Court was
justified in dismissing the application. On these
grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

9. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

10. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner filed a suit
in O.S. No.65 of 2024 and also filed an application in
I.A. No.I seeking an order of temporary injunction
restraining the respondents from interfering in her
peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property.
The Trial Court vide order dated 04.11.2024, allowed
the said application and granted an order of
temporary injunction restraining the respondents
from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule
property.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11061
WP No. 203243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030134792025



11. Despite the said order of injunction, respondents
started interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaint property by the petitioner.
Hence, she submitted a complaint against the
respondents making allegation that the respondents
have disobeyed the injunction order and trying to
interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession
over the suit schedule property. However, the police
issued an endorsement stating that the dispute
involved in the case is of civil nature.

12. It is the duty of the Court to see that the court's
orders are obeyed in its true letter and spirit. Merely
because the petitioner has got an efficacious remedy
under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC is not a ground to
reject the application for police protection. It is the
duty of the Court to see that its orders are
implemented scrupulously. The said aspect was not
considered by the trial Court and committed an error
in dismissing the application only on the ground that

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11061
WP No. 203243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030134792025


the petitioner has got an efficacious remedy under
Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC.

13. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that the trial Court has committed an error in
rejecting the application and as such, I am inclined to
interfere with the impugned order.

14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed .
(ii) The impugned order dated
08.09.2025 passed on I.A. No.V
in O.S. No.65 of 2024 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Bhalki, is quashed .
(iii) Consequently, I.A. No.V is allowed
as prayed for.

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
Ct:pk