SRI B.L. VENUGAOPAL v. HIGH

SRI MOHAMMED AMANULLA S/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB SAB, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO. 8441, SHAMEER MOHALLA, SRINIVASAPURA ROAD, MULABAGAL-563 131.

SRI SYED AMEER PASHA S/O SYED JALEEL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/213/1, OLD MADRA ROAD, BETHAMANGALA, K.G.F. TALUK-563 116.

SRI SYED INAYATHULLA S/O LATE SHARFUDDIN, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4053 WP No. 338 of 2026 HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT OLD TOWN, TEMPLE STREET KGF TALUK-563 122. (BY SRI ABHISHEK N.V., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.12.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KGF IN M.A.NO.9/2025 ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY TO CONFIRM THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.IV DATED

22.01.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KGF IN O.S.201/2022 AT ANNEXURE-F, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

1. This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.201/2022 is directed against impugned order dated 04.12.2025 passed M.A.No.9/2025 by the First Appellate Court whereby the said appeal filed by the respondents/defendant Nos.15 to 17 against the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the trial court on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.201/2022 was allowed by the First Appellate Court, which - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4053 WP No. 338 of 2026 HC-KAR consequently dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.201/2022 against the respondents/defendant Nos.15 to 17 and other defendant Nos.1 to 14 for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties. Along with the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application-I.A.No.4 for temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendant Nos.15 to 17, their family members, GPA holders or any other persons on their behalf from alienating the suit schedule property.

It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that at the time of institution of the suit, the respondents/defendant Nos.15 to 17 were not made parties and since they are alleged to have acquired the suit schedule property, during the pendency of the suit, the - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:4053 WP No. 338 of 2026 HC-KAR respondents were impleaded as additional defendant Nos.15 to 17 to the suit.

After such impleadment of respondents/defendant Nos.15 to 17, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the instant application- I.A.No.4 seeking temporary injunction against respondents/defendant Nos.15 to 17 from alienating, encumbering, disposing of or creating third party rights over the suit schedule property. The said application having been opposed by the respondents, the trial court passed an order dated 22.01.2025 allowing I.A.No.4 favour of the petitioner/plaintiff thereby restraining respondents from alienating, encumbering, disposing of or creating third party rights over the suit schedule property.

Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed an appeal in M.A.No.9/2025 which was allowed by the First Appellate Court, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the First Appellate Court failed to consider well settled principles of law - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4053 WP No. 338 of 2026 HC-KAR governing orders of temporary injunction restraining alienation especially when there is an apprehension that the respondents being lis pendens purchasers would further alienate and create encumbrance over the suit schedule property warranting directions to be issued to the lis pendens purchasers from alienating, creating third party rights or encumbering the suit schedule property. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the First Appellate Court fell in error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

It is needless to state that the object of granting temporary injunction to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and respondents/defendant Nos.15 to 17 undisputedly being pendens purchasers would necessarily have to be restrained from alienating, encumbering or creating third party rights over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.