Dismissed¶78

Smt Rukmini v. Sri Srinivas

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2026MFA/3604/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction refused; appellate restraint under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC - interference only for perversity, arbitrariness or illegality; prima facie case and balance of convenience not established by plaintiff; irreparable injury; disputed identity and location of suit property (Survey No.37/1 vs defence claim of construction on Sy. No.36/1); alleged 5-feet passage encroachment; ex-parte injunction vacated via defendant's I.A. under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC; interlocutory order; full-fledged trial required; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; K.S. Hemalekha J.; decided 08.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Grant of temporary injunction requires satisfaction of three essential ingredients: (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable injury. ¶66

Smt Rukmini Vs Sri Srinivas — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶78

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference by this Court.

¶65

Court's answer

Grant of temporary injunction requires satisfaction of three essential ingredients: (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable injury.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the Trial Court's finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience does not lie in her favour.

¶66

Key takeaways

The Trial Court observed a serious dispute as to the identity and location of the properties; the properties claimed by the plaintiff and the defendants appear distinct and not adjacent.ratio¶68
While exercising jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the appellate court interferes with a trial court's order only when it suffers from perversity, arbitrariness or illegality.ratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC by the plaintiff (MFA No. 3604 of 2025) against the order dated 24.03.2025 on I.A.No.2 in O.S. No.2726/2024 (XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-23, Bengaluru), whereby her application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC was rejected and the defendants' I.A.No.3 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC was allowed, vacating the ad-interim injunction restraining alleged encroachment of a 5-feet western passage abutting the site bearing Survey No.37/1, new BBMP Katha No.1557/45 (510 sq.ft.). Held: (i) temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and the Trial Court found the plaintiff failed on prima facie case and balance of convenience; (ii) there is serious dispute as to identity and location of the properties, which appear distinct and not adjacent; (iii) appellate interference under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) lies only for perversity, arbitrariness or illegality, and the Trial Court exercised its discretion judicially; identity-of-property and existence-of-passage questions require full-fledged trial with no conclusive interlocutory findings. Appeal dismissed; impugned order confirmed; Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously; all contentions kept open.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3604 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. RUKMINI S/O LATE PATTLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.324, K.H.B.COLONY, PATTALAMMA TEMPLE, VADDARAPALYA, (SHIVANAPALYA), KENGERI, BANGALORE-560060.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MAYANNA GOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

SRI SRINIVAS S/O SRI DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶16

SMT. MANJULA W/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶17

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.342/1, KHB COLONY, PATTALAMMA TEMPLE, VADDARAPALYA (SHIVANAPALYA), KENGERI, BANGALORE-560060.

¶18

SRI VENKATARAMU S/O LATE DODDAPATTAIAH,

¶19

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRI NARENDRA @ RAJA S/O VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶23

SRI RAVI S/O VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶24

SRI NAGARAJA S/O SRI DODDAPUTTAIAH,

¶25

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶26

SRI MANJUNATH S/O SRI NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶27

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.342, KHB COLONY, PATTALAMMA TEMPLE, VADDARAPALYA (SHIVANAPALYA), KENGERI, BANGALORE-5600060.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R2)

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.2726/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH.NO.23, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

This miscellaneous first appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 24.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S. No.2726/2024 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-23), Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court rejected I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and allowed I.A. No.3 filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, consequently vacated the ad interim order of temporary injunction.

¶37

Heard Sri Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned

¶38

Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Somashekara K.M., learned counsel for the respondents.

¶39

Brief facts:

¶40

The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent

¶41

injunction in respect of suit property bearing Survey No.37/1, new BBMP Katha No.1557/45, measuring North

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

to South 30 feet and East to West 17 feet, in total 510

¶46

square feet with the boundaries as enumerated below:

¶47

“SCHEDULE PROEPRTY

¶48

Present Schedule-C/ old Schedule-B

¶49

Item No:02

¶50

The piece and parcel of the own Site property bearing Old Sy.no:37/1, new BBMP Khatha No.1557/45, measuring North to South 30 feets and East to West 17 feets, total 510 Sq.feets, situated at Bengaluru south Taluk, Kengeri Hobli, Valagerahalli Dhakale, Vaddarapalya Village (Shivanapalya), Bangalore-560061. Bounded on the

¶51

East by : Nagaraj and Manjunath Allotted Item No:01, property, West by : 5 feets Passage, North by : ‘B’ Scheduled Property South by : ‘C’ Scheduled Property.

¶52

And intends to constructed illegally encroached 5 feets passage by, defendant No:01 and 02, over the above site.”

¶53

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that a 5 feet

¶54

passage exists on the western side, which is used for ingress and egress. Alleging that the defendants have

¶55

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

encroached upon the said passage and commenced construction, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 seeking a temporary injunction. Initially, an ex-parte injunction was granted. Upon appearance, the defendants filed I.A.No.3 seeking vacation of the same, which came to be allowed by the Trial Court.

¶58

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the passage forms part of the plaintiff’s property and is essential for access. The construction undertaken by the defendants is by encroaching upon the said passage. It is contended that the Trial Court has erred in holding that there is no prima facie case, without properly considering the material on record. It is submitted that the finding regarding the identity of the property is erroneous and contrary to the records.

¶59

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the construction

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

undertaken is on a different property situated in Sy. No.36/1 and has no nexus to the plaintiff’s property. It is submitted that there is no passage as claimed by the plaintiff and that the dispute relates to the identity of property, which requires a full-fledged trial. It is submitted that the Trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion.

¶63

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶64

submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is;

¶65

“Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference by this Court?”

¶66

It is well settled that the grant of injunction requires satisfaction of three essential ingredients, namely, (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable injury. The Trial Court, on careful consideration, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case and the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. The

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Trial Court observed that there exists serious dispute regarding the identity and location of the properties. The property claimed by the plaintiff and defendants appears to be distinct and not adjacent.

¶71

Further, it is a trite that the Appellate Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r), would interfere only when the order of the Trial Court suffers from perversity, arbitrariness or illegality. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the Trial Court has considered the pleadings and material on record and exercised its discretion judicially and does not suffer from any perversity or arbitrariness warranting interference. The dispute as to the identity of the property and existence of the passage are matters which require a full-fledged trial, and no conclusive findings can be recorded at this stage. In view of the above, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:

¶72

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

ORDER

¶76

i. The miscellaneous first appeal is hereby

¶77

dismissed .

¶78

ii. The order dated 24.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S. No.2726/2024 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH23), Bengaluru is hereby confirmed .

¶79

iii. The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶80