Bengaluru, September 3: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday stepped in to address a grievance raised by a Bengaluru woman, Mrs. Harini, who had alleged that her plea for urgent protection in a civil property case was not acted upon by the trial court. Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued directions that the matter be decided within a strict timeline.
Background
The case stems from O.S. No. 8870/2024, where Harini, aged 42, had approached the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge seeking a temporary injunction. Her concern was that the respondents - including Dr. Channakrishnappa, his wife Monica, and others - might create third-party rights over disputed property or move funds from related bank accounts. When her request for an ex parte interim order was not granted, she moved the High Court through a writ petition.
Her counsel, Sri Ganapathy Bhat, argued that delaying such interim relief could render the entire suit meaningless.
"The trial court simply issued notice but did not grant even temporary protection," he pointed out during the hearing.
Court's Observations
Justice Nagaprasanna recalled that the High Court had earlier, on February 12, 2025, passed an interim direction safeguarding Harini’s interest. At that time, the respondents were restrained from creating third-party interests in the property until the next date of hearing.
Read also:- Meghalaya High Court to Get New Acting Chief Justice from September 6 After Retirement
Now that the respondents, represented by advocate Sanjay Yadav for the first defendant, have entered appearance, the judge noted that the ball is back in the trial court’s court.
The bench observed,
"The applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 must be considered on merits. Such matters cannot remain pending indefinitely."
The Judge was also mindful of balancing both sides’ rights, remarking that interim relief had already been in force and should remain so until the trial court makes up its mind.
Read also:- President Approves Appointment of New Chief Justice for Bombay High Court
Decision
In the final order, the High Court disposed of Harini’s writ petition with a clear direction: the trial court must hear and decide her applications for temporary injunction within four weeks of receiving the order. Till then, the existing protection continues - meaning the respondents cannot sell, mortgage, or otherwise transfer the disputed properties.
Justice Nagaprasanna concluded firmly:
"The interim order subsisting would continue till the applications are considered. The parties are at liberty to seek necessary orders from the concerned court."
With that, the High Court left the fate of the injunction in the hands of the city civil court, while ensuring that Harini’s case does not languish without urgent attention.
Case Title: Mrs. Harini vs Dr. Channakrishnappa & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3237 of 2025 (GM-CPC)
