SRI. S K NANJEGOWDA vs SRI. S N PUTTEGOWDA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59827
WP No. 34777 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738432025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 34777 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S.K. NANJEGOWDA
S/O. LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST.
2. S.K. SHEKHAR,
S/O. LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST.
3. S.D. SRINIVAS,
S/O. DOLLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST.
4. SRI. S. MANJUNATH,
S/O. S.K. SHEKHAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST.
ALL ARE RESIDING OF SANABA VILLAGE,
AMRUTHA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 111.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59827
WP No. 34777 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738432025
AND:
SRI. S.N. PUTTEGOWDA
S/O. LATE. PATEL NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
R/AT SANABA VILLAGE,
AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 111.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIKRAM A. HULIGOL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. THYAGARAJA S, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22.08.2025 PASSED IN MA NO.5/2025 PASSED
BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNIGAL
(ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition impugns the order dated
22.08.2025 passed in M.A. No. 5/2025 by the Principal Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, whereby the petitioner was
restrained from interfering with the possession of the suit
schedule property.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59827
WP No. 34777 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738432025
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that O.S. No. 394/2024 was instituted seeking the
relief of permanent injunction, along with an application under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC), seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with
the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property.
2.1. It is submitted that, after issuance of notice in the
suit and the application, a further application came to be filed
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking to
restrain the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff, his
authorised agents and labourers from carrying out agricultural
activities and harvesting the crops standing on the suit
schedule property. Upon consideration of the material on
record, the Trial Court rejected the said application by order
dated 08.01.2025.
2.2. It is further submitted that, in the appeal preferred
against the said order, the First Appellate Court, without
considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, proceeded
to grant an order of temporary injunction in terms of the prayer
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59827
WP No. 34777 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738432025
made in the application filed along with the suit. According to
the learned counsel, the relief granted by the First Appellate
Court is either in excess of the relief sought in the application
under consideration or inconsistent with the prayer made
therein. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the
matter warrants reconsideration by the First Appellate Court.
3. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No. 1 on caveat submits that the First Appellate
Court considered I.A. No. 1 filed along with the suit and
granted an order of injunction restraining interference with the
suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, if this Court
is inclined to remand the matter for reconsideration, such
reconsideration may be undertaken without being influenced by
the observations made in the impugned orders.
4. Considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
5. The suit is one for permanent injunction,
accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and
2 of the CPC, seeking to restrain the defendants from
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59827
WP No. 34777 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738432025
interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Notice was ordered on
the said application as well as in the suit. Subsequently, a
further application came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 of the CPC, seeking to restrain the defendants from
obstructing the plaintiff, his authorised agents and labourers
from carrying out agricultural activities and harvesting the
crops standing on the suit schedule property. Objections were
filed to the said application, which was rejected by the Trial
Court by order dated 08.01.2025.
5.1. In the appeal preferred against the said order, the
First Appellate Court proceeded to consider the prayer made in
I.A. No. 1, which sought to restrain the defendants from
interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property, instead of considering
the prayer made in the subsequent application seeking to
restrain the defendants from obstructing agricultural activities
and harvesting of crops. Prima facie, it appears that the First
Appellate Court misdirected itself by considering I.A. No. 1,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59827
WP No. 34777 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738432025
which had not been adjudicated upon by the Trial Court and is
stated to be pending consideration before it.
5.2. For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the
First Appellate Court cannot be sustained and warrants
reconsideration. Though the present writ petition challenges
only the order passed by the First Appellate Court, in the
interest of justice and to facilitate proper adjudication of the
pending applications, it is necessary to set aside both the order
dated 08.01.2025 passed in O.S. No. 394/2024 and the order
dated 22.08.2025 passed in M.A. No. 5/2025 and remit the
matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
6. This Court, by order dated 25.04.2026, directed
both parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession of
the suit schedule property until the Trial Court undertakes the
aforesaid exercise, with a view to preserving the property and
maintaining the existing state of possession. The said interim
arrangement is required to be continued until the pending
applications are adjudicated.
7. In the above circumstances, the following:
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59827
WP No. 34777 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738432025
ORDER
allowed
(i) The writ petition is .
(ii) The order dated 08.01.2025 passed in O.S. No. 394/2024
and the order dated 22.08.2025 passed in M.A. No. 5/2025 are
hereby set aside.
(iii) The applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
CPC are remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and
adjudication.
(iv) The Trial Court shall reconsider both the pending
applications independently, in accordance with law. The
observations made by the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court in the orders impugned herein shall not influence the
Trial Court while reconsidering the applications.
(v) Having regard to the fact that the applications have been
pending since 2024, the Trial Court is directed to consider and
dispose of both pending applications under Order XXXIX Rules
1 and 2 of CPC within an outer limit of six weeks from the date
of production of a copy of this order.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59827
WP No. 34777 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738432025
(vi) Until the pending applications are considered and disposed
of by the Trial Court, the interim order of status quo in respect
of possession, as directed by this Court by order dated
25.04.2026, shall continue to operate.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1