The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20013 MFA No. 3276 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3276 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI. SURYA MUKUNDARAJ L S/O L N MUKUND RAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.370, 7TH CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY, NEAR ISEC, NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE, BANGALORE-560072 (BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VANDANA P L, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SMT.T. PARVATHAMMA W/O T BULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT INDRA PRASTHA, KEB ROAD, RAMANAGARA, NEAR PANDURANGA TEMPLE, AGRI BOMMANAHALLI, BALLARI-583212 2. VINAYAKA B P S/O B G PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.144, 2ND CROSS, NEAR JVS SCHOOL, BIDADI RAMANAGARA-562109 (BY SRI. M T NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. KARTHIK B Y, ADVOCATE FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20013 MFA No. 3276 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 15.04.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.5724/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, REJECTING THE IA.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 and 2 r/w SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal is filed by defendant No.1 calling in question the order dated 15.4.2025 allowing IA.No.1 in OS No.5724/2024 passed by the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru1. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that the first respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit in OS No.5724/2024 for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Along with the plaint, IA.No.1 is filed to restrain the defendants from changing the nature of the suit property of the plaintiff. The Trial Court, vide ex parte ad interim order dated 9.8.2024 passed on IA.No.1, restrained the defendants from interfering with the 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20013 MFA No. 3276 of 2025 HC-KAR suit property till the next date of hearing. The defendants have entered appearance and contested the suit. A counter claim is filed on 27.8.2024 seeking for a permanent injunction to restrain the plaintiff from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendants over the suit property. IA.No.2 is filed by the defendants along with the counter claim for vacating/modifying the interim order passed on IA.No.1. The Trial Court vide order dated 15.4.2025 passed the following order: “ORDER IA.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff is hereby allowed. The interim order granted by this court on 09/08/2024 is continued till disposal of the suit. The defendants, their men, agents, assignees, attorneys or any other person/persons on their behalf are hereby restrained from changing the nature of the suit schedule property of plaintiff, till disposal of the suit. IA.No.II filed by the defendants under Order XXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC and IA.No.III filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC are hereby rejected. For issues call on 23/06/2025.” 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.2025, the present appeal is filed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20013 MFA No. 3276 of 2025 HC-KAR 4. Heard the submission of learned Senior Counsel Sri Shyam Sundar appearing along with Smt Vandana P.L, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Senior Counsel Sri M.T.Nanaiah along with Sri Karthik B.Y, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. The second respondent is defendant No.2 in the suit and for the present, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that although in the order sheet dated 15.4.2025 it is denoted that the order is pronounced by a separate order, despite a certified copy of the same having been applied, the same is not available in the file of the proceedings of the Trial Court. It is further contended that the ex parte ad interim order dated 9.8.2024 that was passed, was beyond the scope of the relief sought in IA.No.1 by the plaintiff. It is further contended that defendant No.1 has also filed a counter claim which has not been considered by the Trial Court. 6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that there were certain typographical errors in the ex parte ad interim order dated 9.8.2024 and the same have subsequently been rectified by the Trial Court, in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20013 MFA No. 3276 of 2025 HC-KAR respect of which copies of the corrected orders have been placed on record before this Court. It is further contended that the suit property is in possession of the plaintiff and the order granted by the Trial Court allowing IA.No.1 is just and proper. It is further contended that a detailed order that was passed on 15.4.2025 is available in the Court file before the Trial Court and the same would be available online also in due course. 7. It is forthcoming that this Court, by order dated 28.4.2025, noticing that there was no separate order and noticing the operative portion of the order dated 15.4.2025, has granted stay of the impugned order dated 15.4.2025 passed on IA.No.1. Subsequently, this Court by order dated 4.6.2025 has directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property till the next date of hearing. 8. It is pertinent to note here that in the above appeal only the order sheet of the order dated 15.4.2025 is filed and till date no detailed order dated 15.4.2025 is placed on record. 9. Be that as it may, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction together with an application for interim injunction. The defendants have also filed a counter claim - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20013 MFA No. 3276 of 2025 HC-KAR seeking for suitable reliefs. The parties are relying upon various documents in support of their respective cases. 10. Although, it is the contention of the appellants that the schedule property is a vacant site, it is the contention of respondent No.1/plaintiff that a two bed room house is in existence. However, the said aspect of the matter is required to be adjudicated by the Trial Court and this Court, while adjudicating the present appeal, for the first time cannot appreciate the documents and record a finding thereof. 11. In view of the aforementioned factual matrix, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the above appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 15.4.2025 passed on IA.No.1 and the Trial Court be directed to consider the interim application filed by the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1. 12. Hence, the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The appeal is partly allowed; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20013 MFA No. 3276 of 2025 HC-KAR ii. The order dated 15.4.2025 passed on IA.No.1 in OS No.5724/2024 by the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside; iii. The Trial Court shall consider IA.No.1 filed by the plaintiff along with the case put forth by the defendants in the counter claim together with any other interim application/s filed by the defendants and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing both the parties afresh; iv. Till such adjudication, the order dated 4.6.2025 passed by this Court directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property shall continue; v. Any observations made by this Court in the above appeal are only for the purpose of adjudication of the above appeal and the Trial Court shall adjudicate upon the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20013 MFA No. 3276 of 2025 HC-KAR herein. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the pending interim applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4