Smt Nethravathi v S Vs Sri K Babu, S/O Konappa

SMT NETHRAVATHI V S D/O. LATE SANNEGOWDA, W/O. SRI SURESH.H.G. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.108, 9TH CROSS, BAIRAVESHWARA NAGARA, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072.

¶10

REP. BY HER G.P.A. HOLDER SRI SURESH.H.G., SON OF LATE GOOLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.2, 6TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, LAGGERE, PARVATHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. SHANKAR G., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI K BABU, S/O KONAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.72, SRI SAI NILAYA ANJANADRI LAYOUT, BABUSAB PALYA, KALYANAAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. K MURTHY., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25781 MFA No. 2614 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.22.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1/2024 IN O.S.NO.4809/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-45), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The appellant has filed this appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-45) in O.S.No.4809/2024, wherein the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff in the shape of I.A.No.1 filed under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC was discussed, seeking an ad interim order of stay, staying the further proceedings pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2022 passed by the LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-65) in OS.No.2309/2020 till disposal of the suit.

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:25781 MFA No. 2614 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

The learned trial Court, considering I.A.No.1,

¶28

dismissed the same disbelieving the possession of the

¶29

plaintiff. It is observed by the learned trial Court that, the plaintiff is claiming his right based on agreement of sale dated 12.05.1983.

¶30

The documents produced by the defendant establish that, his grandfather, namely Mylari @ M.Mylarappa, had gifted the suit property under the registered gift deed dated 25.03.2013.

¶31

O.S.No.5501/2013 and O.S.No.2309/2020 were decreed in

¶32

favour of the defendant. The plaintiff has challenged these judgments and decrees. It is further observed that, the relief sought by the plaintiff to stay the further proceedings pursuant of the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2022, the Court while exercising original jurisdiction cannot stay the judgment and decree that to which was passed in the year 2022.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25781 MFA No. 2614 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

It is further observed that, since the plaintiff

¶36

seeks a stay of further proceedings in respect of a suit already decided, Section 10 of the CPC does not apply to the case on hand. So also by observing with regard to the essential components for grant of temporary injunction, has dismissed the application.

¶37

Strangely enough the appellant has filed an application in the shape of I.A.No.1 under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking an ad interim order of stay, seeking of further proceedings pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2022 passed by the LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.2309/2020.

¶38

The provisions of order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC reads as under;

¶39

"Order 39, Rule 1:

¶40

This rule allows a court to grant a temporary injunction in several situations, including when:

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25781 MFA No. 2614 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit.

¶44

The defendant threatens to dispose of or remove the property in dispute, thus causing injury to the plaintiff.

¶45

The court can issue an order to restrain such

¶46

actions or make any other necessary order to prevent the waste, damage, alienation, or disposal of the property.

¶47

Order 39, Rule 2:

¶48

This rule specifically deals with injunctions to

¶49

restrain the repetition or continuance of a breach of contract or other injury.

¶50

• If a plaintiff is seeking to prevent the defendant from breaching a contract or committing another kind of injury, they can apply for a temporary injunction under this rule.

¶51

The injunction can be for restraining the

¶52

specific breach or any other injury of a similar kind arising from the same contract or relating to the same property or right."

¶53

8. In view of the strict mandate of order 39 Rule 1

¶54

and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, there is no scope to

¶55

seek the relief of staying the further proceedings by filing I.A under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.2309/2020 and such prayer for temporary injunction cannot be granted. The relief sought by the

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25781 MFA No. 2614 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

plaintiff/appellant is misconceived. However, the liberty is

¶59

given to the appellant to move an appropriate application seeking appropriate relief. Rightly the office has raised objections with regard to the maintainability of the appeal.

¶60

As relief itself is not at all tenable under order 43 of the CPC, I do not find any merits in this appeal to hold that, it is maintainable.

¶61