SHARANABASAPPA @ SHARANU vs KHUSHI THE RAYMOND SHOP
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11062
WP No. 202004 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030052952026
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. 202004 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHARANABASAPPA @ SHARANU
S/O SUBHAS YELAMELI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. YELAMELI HOUSE RAM MANDIR ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINAYAK APTE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KHUSHI THE RAYMOND SHOP,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
YELAMELI COMPLEX NEAR SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE,
GURUKUL ROAD VIJAYAPURA-586101,
THROUGH ITS PARTNER.
2. SANGAMESH S/O CHANDRAKANT CHIDRI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. YELAMELI COMPLEX, NEAR SIDDESHWAR
TEMPLE, GURUKUL ROAD VIJAYAPUR-586101.
3. RAGHVENDRA S/O CHANDRAKANT CHIDRI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. YELAMELI COMPLEX, NEAR SIDDESHWAR
TEMPLE, GURUKUL ROAD VIJAYAPUR-586101.
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11062
WP No. 202004 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030052952026
4. NAGENDRA S/O SUBHAS YELAMELI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. YELAMELI HOUSE RAM MANDIR ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
5. SOMASHEKHAR S/O SUBHAS YELAMELI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. YELAMELI HOUSE RAM MANDIR ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
6. MALLIKARJUN S/O SUBHAS YELAMELI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O. YELAMELI HOUSE RAM MANDIR ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2,R3 & R5;
V/O DTD. 19.09.2026 NOTICE TO R4 & R6 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT;
R1 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,
A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 14.08.2025 PASSED IN O.S NO.802/2025 ON
THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC VIJAYAPURA AS
PER ANNEXURE-D AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2026
IN M.A.NO.30/2025 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, VIJAYAPURA AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND
REJECT THE IA NO.I FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
B) ISSUE ANY WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11062
WP No. 202004 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030052952026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 14.08.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 in
O.S. No.802 of 2025 by the learned III Additional
Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura (for short, ‘ the
Trial Court ’), and the judgment dated 10.02.2026
passed in M.A. No.30 of 2025 by the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura
(for short, ‘ the First Appellate Court ’).
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking before the Trial Court: the petitioner is
defendant No.1; respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the
plaintiffs; and respondent Nos.4 to 6 are defendant
Nos.2 to 4.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are
as follows:
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11062
WP No. 202004 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030052952026
4. The plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule properties. In the said suit, the plaintiffs
have filed an application seeking an order of
temporary injunction.
5. The said application was opposed by the respondents
by filing the objections.
6. The Trial Court allowed the application vide Order
dated 14.08.2025 restraining the defendants by way
of temporary injunction from dispossessing the
plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties bearing
Shop Nos.FG 44 to 47 and 56 to 62, totally
measuring 600 square feet out of CTS No.994 to 999
of Ward No.III of Vijayapura, till pending disposal of
the suit.
7. Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the order dated
14.08.2025 passed on I.A. No.1, preferred an appeal
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11062
WP No. 202004 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030052952026
in M.A. No.30 of 2005 on the file of the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura.
8. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal, by
confirming the order dated 14.08.2025 passed in
O.S. No. 802 of 2025 by the Trial Court, vide
judgment dated 10.02.2026.
9. Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the impugned order
and judgment passed by the Courts below, has filed
this writ petition.
10. Heard the learned counsel for defendant No.1 and
learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
11. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that
both the courts below have not properly appreciated
the evidence on record and committed an error in
passing the impugned judgment and order. Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to allow the application.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11062
WP No. 202004 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030052952026
12. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that both
the Courts below have concurrently recorded a
finding of fact that the plaintiffs are in possession of
the suit schedule properties as tenants and the
defendants have to be evicted by due process of law.
Defendant No.1 cannot take the law in his own hand
and dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
13. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
14. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs are in
possession of the suit schedule properties on a lease
for a period of 10 years from defendant No.1, his
mother and sister, and the rent was fixed at the rate
of Rs.35,000/- per month. Subsequently, the
defendant Nos.2 to 4 have executed a lease on
07.12.2024 for a period of 10 years on a monthly
rent of Rs.90,000/- and the said lease is in force.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11062
WP No. 202004 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030052952026
Despite the same, defendant No.1 is trying to
dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule
properties.
15. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit
schedule properties. In a suit for bare injunction, the
Court is required to consider the possession and
interference as on the date of suit.
16. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs are
in possession of the suit schedule properties. If
defendant No.1 wants to seek the possession from
the plaintiffs, he has to evict the plaintiffs by due
process of law.
17. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that both the Courts below have rightly
passed the impugned order and judgment.
18. Further, in view of the exposition of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11062
WP No. 202004 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030052952026
1
Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others ,
the scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the
Constitution is very narrow. In paragraph 31 of its
judgment, the Apex Court has held as follows:
“31. Under Article 227 of the
Constitution, the High Court does not
issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 of
the Constitution vests the High Courts
with a power of superintendence which is
to be very sparingly exercised to keep
tribunals and courts within the bounds of
their authority. Under Article 227, orders
of both civil and criminal courts can be
examined only in very exceptional cases
when manifest miscarriage of justice has
been occasioned. Such power, however,
is not to be exercised to correct a
mistake of fact and of law.”
19. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any
error in the impugned order and judgment passed by
1
(2015) 5 SCC 423
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11062
WP No. 202004 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030052952026
the Courts below, as such, I decline to interfere with
the impugned order and judgment.
20. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed .
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32
Ct:pk