Smt Vasantha Harish Vs Sri B N Chandra Shekhar

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45830 WP No. 33243 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33243 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT VASANTHA HARISH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O. SRI HARISH K., R/AT HARI NIVAS, 6^TH CROSS VIVEKANANDA ROAD PENTACOSTAL CHURCH RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU 560 016

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANIL KUMAR B S.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI B N CHANDRA SHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. NARASIMHAIAH NO. 136/1, SEEGEHALLI, BENGALURU 560 049.

¶13

SRI. PRATHAP SINGH B AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 50, PRASHANTH LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE KADUGODI POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU 560 067.

¶14

SRI. VIKAS PODILI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:45830 WP No. 33243 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

S/O. NAGARAJA NAIDU PODILI, R/AT 22-927/4B, VIJAYNAGAR MAIN-1 ESTATE, GUDUPALLE, CHITTOOR ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 001

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 27.10.2025 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT K.R PURAM, BENGALURU RURAL, ON IA NO. 1 IN O.S NO. 3132/2025 AT ANNX-S BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WP AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO. 1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S NO. 3132/2025GRANT COSTS

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel - Sri H. Shantibhushan on behalf of learned counsel - Sri Anil Kumar B.S. for petitioner.

¶24

The present petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has refrained from granting any ad interim exparte order Temporary Injunction and has issued notice to the

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45830 WP No. 33243 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

respondents/defendants on IA No.1 in O.S. No.

¶28

3132/2025.

¶29

Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

¶30

The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for the relief of Permanent Injunction and other consequential reliefs. Along with the plaint, she filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC r/w Section 151 CPC for an ad interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. In view of urgency involved in the matter, plaintiff sought for an exparte order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants.

¶31

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties,

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45830 WP No. 33243 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

having purchased the same by way of registered sale deeds. The plaintiff got into an agreement of sale with the confirming parties and the defendants with regard to the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff also executed a registered general power of attorney dated 30.10.2024 in favour of the respondents/defendants. Pursuant to the power of attorney, respondents were authorized to perform certain acts on behalf of the petitioner concerning the suit schedule properties. A condition was imposed in the general power of attorney to become effective on payment of consideration amount in the agreement of sale. The payment of the sale consideration was stipulated under the agreement of sale.

¶35

5.1 It is further contended that in terms of the

¶36

agreement of sale and the general power of attorney, the defendants handed over 15 post-dated cheques towards a portion of the sale consideration amounting to Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees seven crores fifty lakhs only), a portion of it was to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45830 WP No. 33243 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

presented the cheques to the banker for collection. The same came to be dishonoured along with other cheques which were given to the confirming parties.

¶40

5.2 It is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the agreement of sale as well as the power of attorney dated 30.10.2024 were not complied and adhered to by the defendants, due to which the plaintiff got issued a legal notice terminating the agreement of sale and so also revoking/cancelling the general power of attorney and also notified the defendants not to transact or meddle with the suit schedule properties, as the powers conferred under the general power of attorney were withdrawn and revoked. After termination of the agreement of sale and cancellation of the general power of attorney, plaintiff also took out a newspaper publications in English daily newspaper viz., New Sunday Express and Kannada Daily, Kannadaprabha , informing the general public of the termination of the agreement of sale and cancellation of the general power of attorney and cautioning the general

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:45830 WP No. 33243 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

public not to transact with the defendants with regard to

¶45

suit schedule properties.

¶46

5.3 It is also contended that the cheques which were given as part performance of the agreement of sale came to be dishonoured and pursuant to cancellation of the agreement of sale and revocation of the general power of attorney, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants were making attempts to alienate, encumber, change the nature and create third party rights over the suit properties. Hence, plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, an application came to be filed on Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 seeking an ad interim order of temporary injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that possession was not handed over to the defendants in pursuance to the agreement of sale. Infact, as per Clause No.6 of the agreement, vendor shall hand over the possession of the suit schedule properties to the purchaser on the date of registration of the absolute sale date.

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45830 WP No. 33243 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Therefore, learned counsel contends that the possession

¶50

was not handed over to the defendants and so also the defendants have defaulted and breached the terms and conditions of the agreement, in view of the cheques issued being dishonored.

¶51

5.4 Under the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff sought for an interim order of temporary injunction.

¶52

The trial Court Issued notice to the defendants as it felt that the defendants require to be heard prior to passing an order of temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court due to the nonpassing of an ad interim order of temporary injunction by the trial Court.

¶53

This Court does not find any need or necessity to

¶54

issue notice to the respondents as the notice has not yet been served on the defendants before the trial Court and

¶55

they have not made their appearance. Since the plaintiff is before this Court on the application filed under Order -

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45830 WP No. 33243 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for an ad-interim order of Temporary Injunction, this Court also does not find the need to issue notice as it is inclined to pass an ad interim order of injunction against the defendants prior to issuance of notice to them, in view of the urgency pleaded by the plaintiff and the peculiar facts and circumstances.

¶59

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the pleadings and grounds urged in the memorandum of petition.

¶60

The three ingredients to be seen by the Court while considering the application for Temporary Injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC are prima facie case; balance of convenience; and hardship that would be caused to the aggrieved party.

¶61

This Court finds that the plaintiff has made out of prima facie case and the balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the plaintiff and so also much hardship would

¶62

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45830 WP No. 33243 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

be caused to the plaintiff rather than the defendants as the defendants have not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale and the cheques issued in pursuance to the agreement of sale have been dishonoured and full payment is not made. So also possession has not been handed over by the plaintiff to the defendants. Therefore, in the intervening period, if an ad interim order of temporary injunction is not granted, there could be possibility of the defendants alienating, encumbering, creating third party rights and also causing damage to the properties, interfering with the rights of the plaintiff over the properties. Under the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to pass an ad interim order of Temporary Injunction to protect the rights of the plaintiff and preserve the properties in the stage where it is.

¶65

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶66

O R D E R

¶67

The petition is allowed .

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:45830 WP No. 33243 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

There shall be an ad-interim exparte order of

¶72

Temporary Injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the petitioner/ plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties (i.e., suit items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule), till disposal of I.A. No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC in O.S. No.3132/2025, on merits.

¶73

The respondents/defendants are at liberty to appear before the trial Court, file their statement of objections and argue the matter for disposal of the application on merits.

¶74