Dismissed¶59

Sri S Prathap v. Sri Srinivas C

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2025MFA/1834/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC Karnataka (Bengaluru), MFA No. 1834 of 2024 (CPC), decided 15-07-2025: defendant's appeal against temporary injunction in O.S.No.5904/2023 dismissed; Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC parameters (prima facie case, balance of convenience, hardship) examined; plaintiff's memo/undertaking regarding property described in defendant's written statement rendered continuation harmless; no costs; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court considered all the aspects (prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship) in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of its judgment. ¶53

Sri S Prathap Vs Sri Srinivas C — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, whether balance of convenience tilts in his favour, and whether hardship warrants the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court (the appellate parameters on an impugned order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC). +1 more

¶53

Court's answer

The trial Court considered all the aspects (prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship) in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of its judgment.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The appellate Court deferred to the trial Court's exercise of discretion in granting the temporary injunction.

¶57

Key takeaways

Since the plaintiff-respondent has given an undertaking (by memo) not to interfere with the property described in the appellant-defendant's written statement, continuing the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court would cause no harm to the appellant, whose rights are thereby protected.ratio¶53
There is no merit in the appeal challenging the grant of temporary injunction.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeal (under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC) by the defendant against the order dated 26.02.2024 of the XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-42) in O.S.No.5904/2023, which granted the plaintiff a temporary injunction restraining the defendant and anyone claiming through him from interfering with the suit schedule property until disposal of the suit. The appellant relied on documents and proof of title from 1959 onwards and pointed to his prior decree in O.S.No.4773/2016 with subsequent execution proceedings. Holding: on such an impugned Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC order the appellate Court must examine prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship; the trial Court had considered these in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 and had exercised its discretion. Because the plaintiff-respondent filed a memo undertaking not to interfere with the property described in the defendant's written statement, continuing the temporary injunction would cause the defendant no harm. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it without costs and disposed of all pending applications.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25994 MFA No. 1834 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1834 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI S PRATHAP S/O LATE G SELVARAJAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.401, TEJASWINI ENCLAVE 4TH CROSS, THYAGARAJ LAYOUT JAI BHARATH NAGAR BANGALORE-560033

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. PUNITH C.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI SRINIVAS C S/O LATE CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.53(OLD NO.350) HOUSE NO.353 AND 349 MATHRUSHREE KAMADHU NILAYA SUBBANNAPALYA BANGALORE-560033

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. KRISHNAPPAN N.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.5904/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-42) AND OTHERS.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:25994 MFA No. 1834 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The appellant-defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2024 in O.S.No.5904/2023 passed by XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, has preferred this appeal challenging the grant of temporary injunction against the appellant/defendant, restraining him or anybody claiming through him, from interfering or meddling with the suit schedule property, till disposal of the suit.

¶24

It is the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court that, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No.53, old No.350, (house) 33, 349, situated at Subbannapalya, Banaswadi Village, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru. According to the plaintiff, he had obtained the khata in respect of the said property and paid relevant tax

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:25994 MFA No. 1834 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

to the BBMP. It is alleged that, all of a sudden, on 25.07.2023, defendant came near the suit schedule property and directed the plaintiff to vacate the property and also directed to handover the vacant possession of the

¶29

property. It is stated that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the property. Because of the interference by the defendant, he was constrained to file present suit and filed I.A.No.1 seeking an interim injunction against the defendant.

¶30

The appellant/defendant, who appeared before the trial Court, resisted the application and filed his written statement denying the entire assertions made in the plaint as well as in the interim application. It is specifically contended by the appellant/defendant that, the suit schedule property is not at all in existence. On the imaginary boundaries, the plaintiff has described the schedule property. He further contended that, the property described in the written statement is named as suit schedule property in his possession and he is in enjoyment

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25994 MFA No. 1834 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

of the same. He further submits that, because of the interference by the present respondent/plaintiff, a suit was filed by the present appellant in O.S.No.4773/2016, seeking relief of injunction. On contest, the said suit came to be decreed and the present appellant was granted the injunction. Because of the interference by the respondent, the appellant filed the Execution Petition and in that Execution Petition, the respondent appeared. Even the respondent obtained police protection and also has filed an application for appointment of commissioner which was dismissed and the said order has become final. In support of this appeal, the appellant has produced certain documents.

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellant, in addition to the grounds urged in the appeal memo, took this Court to various pleadings of the parties as well as the documents so produced by the appellant on 08.04.2024. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon various documents and proof of titles right from the year 1959

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25994 MFA No. 1834 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

onwards. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the defendant is the purchaser of the property which is described in the written statement and since from the date of purchase, it is the appellant who is in possession of the property. He submits that, the plaintiffrespondent has no right, title, interest much less, possession over the suit schedule property. He submits that, the trial Court has wrongly exercised its discretion and granted injunction in respect of the property so mentioned in the plaint, which is not at all in existence. He submits that, the components of grant of temporary injunction i.e. prima-facie case, balance of convenience and hardship is not properly considered by the learned trial Court. He prays to allow the appeal and reject the application so filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

¶38

As a reply to this submission, the learned

¶39

counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that, the temporary injunction order is challenged by the appellantdefendant in the suit. The learned trial Court has

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:25994 MFA No. 1834 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

considered all the aspects of the case and considering the documentary evidence and has come to the conclusion

¶44

that, the plaintiff has made out a prima-facie case and balance of convenience tilts in favour of the plaintiff and in

¶45

case, if no injunction is granted, it is plaintiff who would be put to great hardship. By observing so, the learned trial Court has granted the temporary injunction.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff

¶47

further submits that, as per the pleadings of the appellant/defendant in the said suit, the suit schedule property is not at all in existence. He has described his

¶48

own property in the written statement and the plaintiff has no objections for the defendant to enjoy the said property so mentioned in the written statement. He further submits

¶49

that, in paragraph No.12 of the impugned order, the learned trial Court has specifically observed that, how the plaintiff is entitled for injunction. So also, it is mentioned that, when the plaintiff is not disputing the rights of the defendant with regard to the property so described in his

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25994 MFA No. 1834 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

written statement, the question of continuing the temporary injunction which is granted by the trial Court, would not cause any harm to the defendant. Even the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent filed a memo stating that, he undertakes and agreed not to interfere into the schedule property mentioned in the written statement by the appellant in any manner in the future. He stated that, his undertaking may be taken on record.

¶53

In view of the same, to protect the rights of the appellant, as undertaking is given by the plaintiffrespondent not to interfere into the property so described in the written statement, if the temporary injunction so granted by the trial Court is continued, no harm will be caused to the appellant. This being the appellate Court on the impugned order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, have to see, whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience tilts in his favour and hardship. The trial Court has considered all the aspects in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the judgment. As

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:25994 MFA No. 1834 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the trial Court has exercised its discretion in granting the temporary injunction. In view of the fair submission and memo filed by the respondent, there is no apprehension with regard to the interference by the plaintiff with regard

¶58

to the property so described in the written statement. I find that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is

¶59

liable to be dismissed accordingly it is dismissed .

¶60

No costs.

¶61

All pending applications are disposed off.

¶62

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶63

¶64