The Court dismissed the First Appeal challenging the rejection of the Plaintiff's interim injunction application regarding possession of a flat and parking space. The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's discretion, finding the decision based on material evidence and not arbitrary, as the Defendant had established possession and title.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9220 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI D. HABAKKU S/O DEVA DASS, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, FLAT NO.001, ‘A’ BLOCK, DS MAX SILVER NEST APARTMENT, BEST COUNTY-2, LAKSHMIPURA ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560097.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI AMSHITH H.S., ADVOCATE (V/C))
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI PREM KUMAR SHARMA S/O RADHESHYAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, FLAT NO.107, ‘A’ BLOCK, DS MAX SILVER NEST APARTMENT, BEST COUNTY-2, LAKSHMIPURA ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560097.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANCHAN JAINANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.7102/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-7),
NC: 2026:KHC:19400 MFA No. 9220 of 2025
HC-KAR
DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This miscellaneous first appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 31.10.2025 on I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.7102/2023 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected I.A. No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and allowed I.A. No.2 filed by the defendant.
learned counsel for the caveator/respondent.
HC-KAR
Brief facts:
“ SCHEDULE A PROPERTY
Flat bearing No.001(A block) in Ground floor, constructed over the Schedule ‘A’ property containing two bedrooms along with one car parking bearing No.1 (A Block) and the super built up area, measuring 1140 sq.ft. of the apartment known as “DS-MAX SLIVER NEST APARTMENTS”, located at Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.
East by : Sy.No.27 West by : Road North by : Private property South by : Private property
SCHEDULE B PROPERTY
The car parking slot No.001, located at A-Block, “DS-MAX SLIVER NEST APARTMENTS”,
HC-KAR
Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.
East by : Driveway 12’0 West by : Flat No.309 North by : Flat No.101 South by : Driveway 16’6.”
after hearing both sides, the Trial Court rejected I.A. No.1 and allowed I.A.No.2.
HC-KAR
sought to justify the impugned order and submits that the defendant purchased the property early in 2011, much prior to the plaintiff’s purchase. The parking was allotted under the registered sale deed dated 30.11.2011. In the absence of the defendant, the plaintiff repainted the parking number and interfered with the possession. It is submitted that the Trial Court, having considered all these aspects, has rejected the application by a well-reasoned order, which does not warrant any interference.
submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:
HC-KAR
i. The defendant purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 30.11.2011 much prior to the plaintiff’s purchase.
ii. The parking facility was specifically allotted to the defendant under the said sale deed.
iii. The defendant and his family members are in possession and enjoyment of the apartment along with the parking space since then.
iv. Further, the Trial Court noted that the defendant has approached the jurisdictional police complaining of interference and that the plaintiff has failed to establish exclusive possession over the disputed parking space.
“14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single
1 1990 (Supp) SCC 727
HC-KAR
Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph: (SCR 721)
“... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of
HC-KAR
an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.”
The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.”
Trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case, balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. On the contrary, the defendant has established all three ingredients.
findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on material evidence and discretion exercised is neither arbitrary nor perverse. No case is made out for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:
ORDER
HC-KAR
ii. The order dated 31.10.2025 on I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.7102/2023 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru stands
confirmed .
Sd/-
_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting temporary injunction warrants interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.Referred¶11
Wander Ltd., Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri D. Habaku
Sri Prem Kumar Sharma
K.S. Halekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
