Dismissed¶60

M Sujendra v. Govindappa

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2026MFA/1565/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; MFA No.1565 of 2026 (GM-CPC); Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC appeal against review order; review under Section 114 r/w Section 151 CPC; ex parte temporary injunction restored; statusquo modification of 15.01.2025 set aside for violation of principles of natural justice; memo with Division Bench order in W.A. No.208/2007 (BDA); O.S. No.7503/2024; Sy. No.17/1 Avalahalli Village; Justice K.S. Hemalekha; decided 11.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the Trial Court's order restoring the ex parte temporary injunction stands, with liberty reserved to the appellants to press their memo before the Trial Court for orders after hearing both parties. ¶60

M Sujendra Vs Govindappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order allowing the plaintiff's review application (restoring the ex parte temporary injunction and setting aside the 15.01.2025 status quo direction) suffers from perversity or improper exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in appeal. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court; the Memo filed by the defendants with the W.A. No.208/2007 order remains on record before the Trial Court.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

There were no materials on record to show that the plaintiff was given an opportunity to address the defendants' memo or the document relied upon by them.

¶55

Key takeaways

The order dated 15.01.2025 was passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice, since the plaintiff was not heard before the earlier injunction order was modified.ratio¶55
On this ground (breach of natural justice), the Trial Court exercised its review jurisdiction and restored the earlier ex parte injunction.ratio¶55
The appellants are at liberty to press the memo filed before the Trial Court, which shall consider it and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA (GM-CPC) under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC dismissed. In O.S. No.7503/2024 (permanent injunction suit over Sy. No.17/1, Avalahalli Village), the Trial Court had granted an ex parte temporary injunction on 11.11.2024; on 15.01.2025, acting on the defendants' memo enclosing the Division Bench order in W.A. No.208/2007 (BDA), it modified the injunction to a status quo direction. The plaintiff's review application (IA No.1/2025) under Sections 114 and 151 CPC was allowed, the Trial Court finding that the 15.01.2025 modification was made without hearing the plaintiff, in violation of natural justice, and restoring the ex parte injunction. The High Court (K.S. Hemalekha J.) upheld the review order: no material showed the plaintiff had been heard on the memo, so the 15.01.2025 order breached natural justice; the memo remains on record and the defendants are at liberty to press it, the Trial Court to pass orders after hearing both parties; hence no ground to interfere.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:14680 MFA No. 1565 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1565 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M. SUJENDRA S/O H.M. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶10

INDRESH KUMAR, S/O M. SURENDRA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE R/O AT NO.33, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 8^TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 062. …APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI D. VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.594, 23^RD CROSS, KASTHURI BA COLONY, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BANGALORE-560078. …RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI SUBRAMANI M., ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.7503/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-09), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:14680 MFA No. 1565 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The defendants are before this Court in this Miscellaneous First Appeal assailing the Order passed on IA No.1/2025 in OS No.7503/2024 on the file of XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, (the ‘trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff in IA No.1/2025 under Section 114 read with Section 151 CPC, and the order dated 15.01.2025 was set aside and restored the ex parte temporary injunction earlier granted in favour of the plaintiff.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/caveator and perused the material on record.

¶27

The respondent-plaintiff instituted suit O.S

¶28

No.7503/2024 seeking a decree of permanent injunction

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14680 MFA No. 1565 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No.17/1 of Avalahalli Village. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed IA No.1 seeking temporary injunction, upon which the Trial Court on 11.11.2024 granted an exparte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.

¶32

Subsequently, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement and objections to the injunction application along with the memo enclosing the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.208/2007 (BDA), dated 03.07.2009, wherein the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land in Survey No.17/1 of Avalahalli Village.

¶33

Taking note of the said memo and the order

¶34

passed in writ appeal, the Trial Court on 15.01.2025

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:14680 MFA No. 1565 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

modified the earlier exparte injunction and directed the

¶39

parties to maintain status quo.

¶40

6. Aggrieved by the said modification, the plaintiff filed IA No.1/2025 under Section 114 read with 151 CPC seeking review and modification of the order dated 15.01.2025 and the restoration of the earlier injunction order.

¶41

The Trial Court allowed the said application and

¶42

restored the earlier order of exparte temporary injunction which is challenged in the present appeal.

¶43

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

¶44

the trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the review application. The Trial Court has misread the scope of the application, assuming that the plaintiff has sought permission to carry out construction in the property. It is submitted that the order allowing the review application suffers from perversity and improper exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court.

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14680 MFA No. 1565 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

9. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the

¶48

respondent sought to justify the order and submits that the Trial Court has rightly exercised the power of review after examining the material on record. It is submitted that the order dated 15.01.2025 directing status quo was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in restoring the earlier injunction order.

¶49

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶50

Undisputedly, the suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering and disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Initially, the Trial Court on 11.11.2024, granted an ex parte order of temporary injunction, which remained in force till 15.01.2025. On 15.01.2025, the defendants filed a memo along with the order passed in

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14680 MFA No. 1565 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Writ Appeal No.208/2007, pursuant to which, the Trial

¶54

Court directed the parties to maintain status quo.

¶55

However, there were no material on record to show that the plaintiff was given an opportunity to address his arguments regarding the memo or the document relied upon by the defendants. The Trial Court therefore rightly concluded that the order dated 15.01.2025 was passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice, since the plaintiff was not heard before modifying the earlier injunction order. On this ground, the Trial Court exercised its review jurisdiction and restored the earlier ex parte injunction.

¶56

The memo filed by the defendants along with the order in W.A. No.208/2007 is placed on record before the trial Court and the defendants are at liberty to press for orders on the same. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14680 MFA No. 1565 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed .

¶61

ii. The appellants are at liberty to press the memo filed, which the Trial Court shall consider and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties in accordance with law.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶64

TSN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

M Sujendra v. Govindappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Sujendra v. Govindappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnatka Rajya Raitha Sangha and Hasiru Sene Vs Deputy Commissioner for Excise

H G Madhava, Vs H G Keshava

Smt. B.M. Rukmanamma Vs State of Kanrataka

Gopalappa Vs v Nagaraj

Narasimhamurthy Vs Narasimhappa

Rajput Samaj(Karnataka) Vs Sri Lalchand D Jain