Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Krishnamurthy vs B Rangaswamy

Krishnamurthy vs B Rangaswamy

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Oct 27, 2025
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1711584

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/15910/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishnamurthy

Respondent

B Rangaswamy

Excerpt

.....defendant nos.1 & 2, who are -3-brothers, restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which is a theatre. in the said suit, ia no.2 was filed by the plaintiffs under order xxxix rules 1 & 2 of cpc with a prayer to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining thedefendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and from exhibiting films in the schedule property. the prayer made in ia no.2 was opposed by defendant nos.1 & 2 by filing objections. the trial court vide the order dated 19.04.2018 had rejected ia no.2 filed in o.s.no.224/2018, and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs had filed m.a.no.20/2018 before the court of principal senior civil judge at hassan andvide order impugned, m.a.no.20/2018 was allowed and consequently the prayer made in ia no.2 was granted. aggrieved by the same, defendant no.2 is before this court.4. perusal of the material on record would go to show thatthis court, after hearing both the parties, on 06.09.2021, has passed an interim order directing the petitioner and respondent nos.1 to 3 to maintain status quo as regards the use, occupation and nature of the subject property, and the said -4- interim order has been in operation for the last more than four years.5. it is brought to the notice of this court by the learnedadvocates appearing on both sides that the trial in the case has already commenced and the suit is at the stage of recording plaintiffs' evidence. therefore, i am of the opinion that if this petition is disposed of by extending the order of status quo granted by this court on 06.09.2021 till the suit is disposed of by the trial court on merits, the same would serve the ends of justice. accordingly, the following order:6. writ petition is disposed of with a request to the trialcourt to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, as expeditiously as possible. the order of status quo granted.....

Full Judgment

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 15910 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KRISHNAMURTHY R/AT NO. POOJA MIG 143/15A BEHIND BSNL BHAVAN KUVEMPU NAGAR …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SRUTI C CHAGANTI, ADV.) AND:

1. B RANGASWAMY

S/O BETTAPPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS. Digitally 2. TEJASVI signed by S/O. B. RANGASWAMY NANDINI M S Location: AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BOTH RESIDING AT BHANU THEATRE, B.M. ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

3. BHANU THEATRE A FIRM OF PARTNERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER B RANGASWAMY BM ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

4. C.R. JAGADISHA R/AT PRUTVI RAKSHNAPURAM -2- RAVINDRANAGAR …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANAGHA JAYAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR SRI CHALAPATHY AND SRINIVAS, ADVs., FOR R-1 TO R-3; V/O/D 06.09.2021, NOTICE TO R-4 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN M.A.NO.20/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HASSAN.SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND

ORDER DTD. 16.04.2021 PASSED IN M.A.NO.20/2018 BY THE

LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HASSAN, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

1. Defendant no.2 is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.04.2021 passed in M.A.No.20/2018 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Hassan.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Respondent nos.1 to 3 herein have filed O.S.No.224/2018 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Hassan, seeking the relief of permanent injunction against defendant nos.1 & 2, who are -3-

brothers, restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which is a theatre. In the said suit, IA no.2 was filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC with a prayer to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the

defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and from exhibiting films in the schedule property. The prayer made in IA no.2 was opposed by defendant nos.1 & 2 by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order dated 19.04.2018 had rejected IA no.2 filed in O.S.No.224/2018, and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs had filed M.A.No.20/2018 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Hassan and

vide order impugned, M.A.No.20/2018 was allowed and consequently the prayer made in IA no.2 was granted. Aggrieved by the same, defendant no.2 is before this Court.

4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that

this Court, after hearing both the parties, on 06.09.2021, has passed an interim order directing the petitioner and respondent nos.1 to 3 to maintain status quo as regards the use, occupation and nature of the subject property, and the said -4- interim order has been in operation for the last more than four years.

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned

Advocates appearing on both sides that the trial in the case has already commenced and the suit is at the stage of recording plaintiffs' evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if this petition is disposed of by extending the order of status quo granted by this Court on 06.09.2021 till the suit is disposed of by the Trial Court on merits, the same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following order:

6. Writ petition is disposed of with a request to the Trial

Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, as expeditiously as possible. The order of status quo granted by this Court on 06.09.2021 shall continue till the disposal of the suit on its merits by the Trial Court. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial