Dismissed¶64

Smt Lakshmamma v. Smt. Radha

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026MFA/4168/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC MFA 4168/2026 (CPC) Pradeep Singh Yerur; temporary injunction Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC rejected; prima facie case; balance of convenience; admitted possession; Sampige Bar & Restaurant; Schedule 'B' property encroachment; sublease to G.Veerabhadra; damages Rs. 78,00,000 (Seventy Eight Lakhs); O.S. No.8489/2025; XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru; appeal filed u/s 43 Rule 1(r) CPC; disposed at admission without notice; appeal dismissed; liberty to file fresh application; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no relief granted. Plaintiff left at liberty to file a fresh application seeking fresh relief; Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter or any other relief. ¶64

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Smt. Radha — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; no relief granted. Plaintiff left at liberty to file a fresh application seeking fresh relief; Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter or any other relief.

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-plaintiff made out a prima facie case, favourable balance of convenience and hardship warranting temporary injunction (I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) restraining the defendants from running Sampige Bar & Restaurant and creating nuisance on Schedule 'B' property, given that the plaintiff was admittedly not in possession and the defendants admittedly were in possession carrying on the Bar business. +1 more

¶60

Court's answer

The dismissal of I.A.No.1 was upheld as rightful: on the admitted facts (plaintiff out of possession; defendants in possession and enjoyment of Schedule 'B' property running the Bar and Restaurant), the application failed for want of prima facie case, with balance of convenience and hardship weighing against the plaintiff, and the relief was accordingly negated and the application dismissed.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the temporary injunction application I.A.No.1.

¶61

Key takeaways

As part of the operative decision, the plaintiff was expressly left at liberty to file a fresh application, if warranted, seeking fresh relief.ratio¶61
The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter or on any other relief that may be claimed, and that its observations were specific to the application before it.obiter¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), 17 June 2026 — MFA No. 4168 of 2026 (CPC), filed u/s 43 Rule 1(r) CPC by Smt. Lakshmamma (plaintiff) against Smt. Radha and others (defendants). Appeal against order dated 24.04.2026 of XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.8489/2025 dismissing I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, whereby plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining defendants from running 'Sampige Bar & Restaurant' and creating nuisance on Schedule 'B' property pending suit (suit reliefs: declaration of ownership, possession, damages of Rs. 78,00,000/- with interest, permanent injunction). Held: disposed of at admission stage without notice to respondents; on admitted facts plaintiff was not in possession of Schedule 'B' property while defendants were in possession and enjoyment running the Bar and Restaurant; therefore no prima facie case for interim relief, and balance of convenience and hardship favoured the defendants — trial Court rightly negated the relief and dismissed the application; no good ground or cogent reason to interfere; plaintiff at liberty to file a fresh application seeking fresh relief; no opinion expressed on the merits or on any other relief, observations confined to the application. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4168 OF 2026 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO. 03, SAMPANNA LAYOUT KALIDASA ROAD, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KACHARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU 560 084

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. MANU K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

SMT.RADHA W/O LATE S.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶13

SRI. K. CHETHAN, S/O LATE S.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶14

SRI. K. RAKSHITH, W/O LATE S.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶15

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 05, SAMPANNA LAYOUT, KALIDASA ROAD,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

KAMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KACHARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU - 560 084

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 43 RULE 1 (r) OF THE CPC, 1908, TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24/04/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S. NO.8489/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF I.A.NO.1 AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶26

This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the

¶27

respondents at this stage. After hearing the learned counsel for

¶28

the appellant, this Court has decided to dispose of the matter at the initial stage of admission itself.

¶29

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.8489/2025 dated 24.04.2026 on the applicationI.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

appellant-plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for the following reliefs:

¶34

"a) Declare that Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Schedule 'B' property

¶35

B) Directing the Defendants to handover the encroached schedule 'B' property as mentioned in the plaint to the plaintiff and put the Plaintiff in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule 'B' Property.

¶36

C) Directing the Defendants to pay the damages of Rs. 78,00,000/(Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs Only) to the Plaintiff for illegal possession of the encroached schedule 'B' property as mentioned in the plaint with applicable interest till realization of the suit.

¶37

D) Grant permanent injunction directing the Defendants not to run the business in the Schedule 'B' Property and not to create nuisance in respect of the Schedule 'B' Property belongs to the Plaintiff.

¶38

E) Grant other reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity."

¶39

Along with the plaint, an application came to be

¶40

filed seeking an order of temporary injunction under Order 39

¶41

Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking the following reliefs:

¶42

"That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the Plaintiff pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased directing the Defendants not to run the Bar namely Sampige Bar & Restaurant till

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

disposal of the above suit in respect of the 'B' Schedule Property and not to create any nuisance in respect of the 'B' Schedule Property till disposal of the above suit, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶47

Upon notice being served, the defendants appeared; filed their written statement; objected the

¶48

application and took up several contentions including the suit being not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the application.

¶49

Learned trial Judge, upon consideration of the application, did not find favour with the plaintiff for the reason that the relief sought for by the plaintiff could not be granted as admittedly the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration of ownership over the 'B' schedule property so also the possession over the 'B' schedule property, which the defendants have encroached and for a direction to the defendants to pay damages for illegal possession of the encroached portion of 'B' schedule property. It is also seen from the impugned order that the defendants have subleased item Nos.1 to 3 of the 'B' schedule property to another person by name G.Veerabhadra. The defendants are running a Bar and Restaurant illegally in the 'B' schedule property, which is the absolute property of the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

plaintiff and therefore, they are not entitled to continue possession and enjoyment and moreover, they are creating nuisance in the 'B' schedule property.

¶54

The prayer sought in the application is for a direction to the defendants to not run the bar namely Sampige Bar and Restaurant in the 'B' schedule property and also not to create any nuisance in the 'B' schedule property.

¶55

Apparently, even according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not in any possession of 'B' schedule property, though he claims to be the owner of 'B' schedule property. It is also admitted that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of 'B' schedule property and illegally running the Bar and Restaurant stated herein above. Therefore, by looking into these aspects of admitted facts, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case for grant of an interim order in his favour. So also, the balance of convenience would tilt more in favour of the defendants rather than the plaintiff as the plaintiff has admitted the defendants to be in possession, enjoyment and carrying on business of Bar and Restaurant in the 'B' schedule property. It

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

appears from the prayer made that the prayer in the application is not very happily worded as argued and contented by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court.

¶60

Be that as it may, however, the trial Court and this Court will have to go by the relief sought for by the plaintiff and rightfully the trial Court has discussed these issues and having not found any good ground or cogent reason to allow the application in favour of the plaintiff or want of prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused to her rather than the defendants, has negated the relief and dismissed the application.

¶61

I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge. However, the plaintiff would be at liberty to file a fresh application, if so warrants, by seeking fresh relief.

¶62

11. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i) Appeal is dismissed .

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68