Disposed¶53

Sri B Bhaskar Naidu v. Sri Venugopal Reddy H K

Karnataka HC29 Jul 2025MFA/6080/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA 6080 of 2024; Karnataka High Court; Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J; temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC appeal; permanent injunction suit; proof of possession irrespective of schedule; O.S. No. 8069/2023; VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru (CCH-11); Phodi litigation; Karnataka Appellate Tribunal; trial to be completed within one and a half years; contentions kept open; appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the appellant; the temporary injunction order effectively stands; trial court directed to conduct trial and dispose of the suit within one and a half years; all contentions kept open. ¶53

Sri B Bhaskar Naidu Vs Sri Venugopal Reddy H K — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's order dated 08.08.2024 allowing I.A. No. 1 (temporary injunction) in O.S. No. 8069/2023 should be interfered with in this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC.

¶36

Court's answer

The suit is only for permanent injunction and not for declaration of title; it is upon the plaintiff to prove possession of the property irrespective of the schedule.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The order of the trial court granting temporary injunction is rightly granted.

¶46

Key takeaways

The trial court was directed to conduct the trial and dispose of the suit.ratio¶46
The trial was to be concluded as early as possible, within a period of one and a half years from the date of receipt of copy of the order.ratio¶51
All contentions of the parties were kept open, and the observations made in the order shall not influence the trial court in deciding the case on merits.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J), MFA No. 6080 of 2024 (CPC), decided 29-07-2025: Appeal by defendant No.1 under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 08.08.2024 of the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-11), allowing I.A. No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC granting temporary injunction in O.S. No. 8069/2023, a suit for permanent injunction. Held: the suit being only for permanent injunction and not for declaration of title, it is upon the plaintiff to prove possession of the property irrespective of the schedule; the grant of temporary injunction was rightly made. The trial court was directed to conduct the trial and dispose of the suit as early as possible, within one and a half years from receipt of copy of the order (Phodi work having been noted as under litigation before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal). All contentions kept open; observations not to influence the trial court on merits. Appeal disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:29037 MFA No. 6080 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6080 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI B BHASKAR NAIDU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O B SURYANARAYANA, R/AT NO. 1040, 10TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, G K V K POST, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 065.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI VENUGOPAL REDDY H K AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O LATE H P KRISHNA REDDY, R/AT NO. 230/1, HOODI, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, MAHADEVAPURAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶15

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1(A) TRIPURA REDDY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS W/O LATE H.K.VENUGOPAL REDDY (REPORTED DEAD DURING SERVICE OF NOTICE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:29037 MFA No. 6080 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

1(B) JAYANTH VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE H.K.VENUGOPAL REDDY

¶19

1(C) MINU VENUGOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O H.K.VENUGOPAL REDDY

¶20

ALL RESIDING AT

¶21

R/AT NO.230/1, HOODI, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, MAHADEVAPURAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560048.

¶22

2. SRI HARINDRANATH

¶23

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O LATE H P KRISHNA REDDY, R/AT NO. 2AC, 712, 2ND CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK, KALYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.AMRUTHESH.C ADV FOR C/R1(A) AND ALSO R1(B AND C) IN (CP NO.14456/2024)

¶26

R1(B AND C) ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF R1(A).

¶27

R2 IS SERVED.

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 8069/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCCH.11), ALLOWING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:29037 MFA No. 6080 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

The defendant No.1 in O.S.No.8069/2023 has filed this

¶36

appeal challenging the order dated 08.08.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.8069/2023 on the file of VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-11), thereby the application filed for temporary injunction is allowed.

¶37

For convenience, parties are referred based on their ranking before the trial Court. Appellant was the defendant No.1, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and the respondent No.2 was the defendant No.2.

¶38

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶39

The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction. The trial Court while granting temporary injunction has

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29037 MFA No. 6080 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

observed that whether in the 'A' schedule property portion

¶43

of the land has been used for Public road or not is a matter of trial. The plaintiff has disputed the correctness of survey.

¶44

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶45

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, now the work of Phodi is under litigation before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. He further submits that, unless the work of Phodi is completed, there could not be chances of expeditious progress before the trial Court in the suit.

¶46

Now, the suit is only for permanent injunction and it is not for declaration of title. It is upon the plaintiff to prove the possession of the property irrespective of schedule. Therefore, the order of grant of temporary injunction is rightly *granted , at the same time directing the trial Court to conduct the trial and dispose of the suit

¶47