Disposed¶34

B H Nischith Shetty v. Sri B a Anil

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2026MFA/1225/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA 1225/2026, Karnataka HC Bengaluru, 18 March 2026, Hemalekha J.; Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC appeal against vacation of ex-parte temporary injunction (order dt. 02.02.2026 on I.A.No.1 in O.S.4932/2025, XIV Addl. City Civil Judge); plea of no opportunity of hearing / natural justice rejected; both counsel held represented per order sheet; remedy directed to trial Court application; appeal disposed, not decided on merits of injunction.

What did the court decide?

MFA disposed of, reserving liberty to the appellant to approach the trial Court by filing an appropriate application. ¶34

B H Nischith Shetty Vs Sri B a Anil — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:16107 MFA No. 1225 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1225 OF 2026 (CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

B.H. NISCHITH SHETTY S/O LATE SRI. HIRIYANNA SHETTY .B AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.17/1, SRIDEVI NILAYA, NEAR NEW AGE PUBLIC SCHOOL MARTHALLI, BENGALURU-560037.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI SWAROOP S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI B.A. ANIL S/O LATE B.G. ASWATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.41, CHAITANYAYALA GROVE NEAR RAYAN SCHOOL, KUNDANHALLI, BENGALURU-560037.

¶15

(BY SMT. NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4932/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:16107 MFA No. 1225 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed against the order dated 02.02.2006 passed on I.A.1 in O.S.No. 4932/2025 by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (‘the trial Court’ for short) whereby the exparte order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff on 15.07.2025 has been vacated.

¶25

The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the trial

¶26

Court who had obtained an ex-parte order of temporary injunction on 15.07.2025. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 02.02.2026, the trial Court vacated the exparte injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed contending that the order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16107 MFA No. 1225 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

appellant and in utter violation of principles of natural justice.

¶31

On perusal of the trial Court records, particularly

¶32

the order sheet, it is evident that both sides were represented through counsel at the time of passing of the impugned order. The contention of the appellant that he was not heard is a matter which involve factual adjudication and the appropriate remedy for the appellant is to approach the trial Court itself by filing an appropriate application bringing such grievance to its notice. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

¶33

Accordingly, the MFA stands disposed of reserving

¶34

liberty to the appellant to approach the trial Court by filing an appropriate application.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶37

CKL/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

B H Nischith Shetty v. Sri B a Anil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B H Nischith Shetty v. Sri B a Anil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nalini Sushma M S Vs Mohammed Khadir Ur Rahman

Puttamma Vs Anna Bovi Dead by Lrs

M Rajashekar Vs the Commissioner

Sri Prabhakar Reddy Vs Smt Muniyallamma

Krishna Moolya Vs Sadashiv Bhat

Sri T S Mahadevaiah Vs Sri Bolashivanegowda