Sri Raju Vs M/S Navakar — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri Raju Vs M/S Navakar — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant: the Miscellaneous First Appeal was dismissed and the trial Court's temporary injunction order dated 19.02.2019 on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.7501/2018 was confirmed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Directions: observations made during consideration of I.A.No.1 will not influence the trial Court on merits, and the trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court warrants any interference.

Court's answer

The Appellate Court would not interfere with the discretionary order of the trial Court unless the same is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or contrary to the settled principle.

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court's finding, on examination of the City Survey Plan and other documents, that what is shown is only a vacant space and not a notified public road is based on appreciation of material on record and cannot be termed as perverse.

Key takeaways

The plaintiff's undertaking to abide by the decision of the competent authority in the event of encroachment was rightly taken into consideration by the trial Court while balancing equities.ratio¶42
If interference with the plaintiff's sanction-plan construction were not restrained, greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff; conversely, at this stage the defendant had not established a clear legal right warranting refusal of injunction.ratio¶45
The appellant made out no case demonstrating that the discretion exercised by the trial Court was either arbitrary or capricious; the point framed for consideration was accordingly answered.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Temporary injunction -- Appeal under O.43 R.1(r) CPC -- Appellate non-interference with discretionary interim orders -- Defendant's MFA against order dated 19.02.2019 on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.7501/2018 (LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, CCH-59) granting injunction under O.XXXIX Rs.1 & 2 CPC restraining interference with compound-wall construction on suit property -- Plaintiff claimed title under registered sale deed dated 09.05.2014 with sanction plan; ownership and possession not seriously disputed, dispute confined to alleged existence of a public road on the northern side -- Held: appellate court will not disturb a discretionary trial-court order unless shown arbitrary, perverse or contrary to settled principle; trial Court's finding, on City Survey Plan and other documents, that the space is only a vacant space and not a notified public road rested on appreciation of record and was not perverse; defendant failed to establish clear legal right at the interlocutory stage while greater hardship lay on the plaintiff; plaintiff's undertaking to abide by the competent authority's decision rightly weighed in balancing equities -- MFA dismissed; trial Court order confirmed; observations not to influence merits; suit to be disposed of expeditiously (K.S. Hemalekha J.).

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:16530 MFA No. 7726 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7726 OF 2019 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAJU S/O SRI PONNA PUJARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.9-4/2, 6^TH CROSS, MASJID ROAD, OLD OKALIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 021.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. T PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

M/S NAVAKAR REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.22/1, MADARSAB LANE, COTTONPET, BENGALURU - 560 053. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, SRI SUSHIL KUMAR AND MR NOORULLA.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA.,ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED. 19.02.2019, PASSED ON IA.NO.I, IN O.S. NO.7501/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.I, FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

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

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16530 MFA No. 7726 of 2019

HC-KAR

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the defendant calling in question the order dated 19.02.2019 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.7501/2018 on the file of LV111 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.No.59) (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff and granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the construction of the compound wall around the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

Brief facts :

The plaintiff has instituted the suit seeking decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, claiming to be the absolute owner in possession having acquired title under a registered sale deed dated

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16530 MFA No. 7726 of 2019

HC-KAR

09.05.2014 and having obtained sanction plan for construction. It is the case of the plaintiff that while he was putting up construction, the defendant interfered and obstructed the same without any manner of right. The plaintiff therefore, filed I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant.

The defendant entered appearance and contested the application contending that there exists a public road on the northern side of the suit property, which is the only access to his property, and that the plaintiff is attempting to encroach upon the said road. The trial Court, upon consideration of the materials placed on record, allowed the application and granted temporary injunction.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court failed to consider that a public road of 5.80 meters exists on the northern side of the suit property and the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and has not correctly described the boundaries of the suit

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16530 MFA No. 7726 of 2019

HC-KAR

property. It is submitted that the plaintiff is attempting to encroach upon the public road by putting up a compound wall. Further, it is contended that the trial Court has ignored the City Survey records, documentary evidence showing existence of the road, and that the plaintiff has made unauthorised construction.

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff contends that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession supported by the registered sale deed and revenue records. It is contended that there is no road on the northern side of the property and the defendant is making false claims to interfere with lawful construction. It is also contended that the defendant had earlier failed in obtaining injunction and is now causing obstruction and that the plaintiff has established a primafacie case and balance of convenience lies in his favour.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:16530 MFA No. 7726 of 2019

HC-KAR

This Court has carefully considered the rival

contentions urged and perused the materials placed on record.

The point that arises for consideration is that whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court warrants any interference .

The trial Court on consideration of the pleadings and documents has held that the plaintiff has established a prima-facie case, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if injunction is not granted and accordingly, allowed I.A.No.1 and restrained the defendant from interfering with the construction.

The appeal is against the order of temporary injunction. It is well settled that the Appellate Court would not interfere with the discretionary order of the trial Court unless the same is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or contrary to the settled principle. The materials placed on

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:16530 MFA No. 7726 of 2019

HC-KAR

record discloses that the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is not seriously disputed. The dispute is confined to the alleged existence of a road on the northern side. The trial Court has considered the chain of documents produced by the plaintiff, which do not disclose existence of any road on the northern side. On the other hand, the material produced by the defendant does not conclusively establish the existence of the public road. The trial Court has examined the City Survey Plan and also the other documents and has recorded a finding that what is shown is only a vacant space and not a notified public road. The said finding is based on appreciation of material on record and cannot be termed as perverse.

The plaintiff has also filed an undertaking to abide by the decision of the competent authority in the event of encroachment. This aspect has been rightly taken into consideration by the trial Court while balancing equities. At this stage, the plaintiff is putting up

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:16530 MFA No. 7726 of 2019

HC-KAR

construction based on a sanction plan. If the interference is not restrained, greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff. On the contrary, the defendant has not established clear legal right at this stage warranting refusal of injunction.

The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on prima-facie case and appreciation of material. The settled principles governing grant of injunction has rightly been applied by the trial Court. The appellant has not made out any case to demonstrate that the discretion exercised by the trial Court is either arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the point frame for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed .

ii) The order dated 19.02.2019 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.7501/2018 on the file of

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:16530 MFA No. 7726 of 2019

HC-KAR

LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.No.59) is hereby confirmed .

iii) It is needless to say that any observation made by this Court or the trial Court during the course of considering I.A.No.1 will not influence the trial Court to consider the matter on merits.

iv) The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

PHM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26