MR. NEMIRAJ SHETTY vs MR. SHRAVAN KRISHNARAJ — WP/10495/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: KAHC010233312026

Filing Number

WP/10515/2026

Filing Date

27-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/10495/2026

Registration Date

01-Apr-2026

Judge

H.T. Narendra Prasad

Coram

H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 144 )

Sub-Category

CPC-Civil Procedure Code ( 24 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MR. NEMIRAJ SHETTY

    Adv. SACHIN B S

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MR. SHRAVAN KRISHNARAJ

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    H.T. Narendra PrasadView PDF

    The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition and set aside the trial court's order directing the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 12,50,000 in rent arrears. The court held that since the suit was for permanent injunction without any counter-claim, the defendant's Section 151 CPC application seeking rent payment was unmaintainable, and the trial court erred in allowing it. The court clarified that any future counter-claim application by the defendant would be considered separately by the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Non-Compliance Of Office-Objns For 1St Time

    H.T. Narendra Prasad

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 27-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/10495/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition and set aside the trial court's order directing the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 12,50,000 in rent arrears. The court held that since the suit was for permanent injunction without any counter-claim, the defendant's Section 151 CPC application seeking rent payment was unmaintainable, and the trial court erred in allowing it. The court clarified that any future counter-claim application by the defendant would be considered separately by the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case