- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3388 MFA No. 201907 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201907 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: NINGAREDDY S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHIMNAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI – 585 211. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHIVA KUMAR MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NARASANNA S/O LAXMANNA JACOBA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHIMNAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI – 585 211. 2. JAYASHREE W/O KESHAVAREDDY, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHIMNAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI – 585 211. 3. NAGENDRA S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3388 MFA No. 201907 of 2024 AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHIMNAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI – 585 211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GANESH V. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 AND R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43(1) OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOWED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.06.2024 PASSED ON I.A.-I NO. IN O.S NO.171/2023 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHITTAPUR, BE SET ASIDE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging order dated 14.06.2024 passed by Senior Civil Judge at Chittapur in O.S.no.171/2023 on I.A.no.I filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Shivakumar Malipatil, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by plaintiff in O.S.no.171/2023 filed for relief of declaration of plaintiff as owner of suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. It was submitted, in plaint it was stated that extent of 04 Acres 25 guntas in Sy.no.11/1 of Bhimanhalli, Chittapur Taluk, Kalaburagi district originally - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3388 MFA No. 201907 of 2024 belonged to Sri Gurunath Reddy S/o Devindra Reddy, who was plaintiff’s grand father. After death of Gurunath Reddy, plaintiff’s father-Basavarajappa had filed application for mutation of his name. Same was sanctioned by order dated 26.08.1991. However mutation was not effected in record of right. After expiry of plaintiff’s father in year 2017, when plaintiff approached revenue authorities for mutation of his name, he noticed name of defendants entered even though they did not have any right or title over suit property, but claimed to have purchased it under registered sale-deeds executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3. In view of defendants setting up rival title, plaintiff was constrained to file suit for declaration of title and for injunction. 3. In said suit he had filed I.A.I for temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession. In affidavit filed in support of application he had not only narrated very facts stated in plaint but also substantiated same with documents. It was submitted initially trial Court had granted an exparte order of temporary injunction. On appearance and opposition of application, impugned order was passed vacating exparte interim order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3388 MFA No. 201907 of 2024 granted earlier and rejecting I.A.I with cost of `5,000/- and referring matter to Lok-adalat. Aggrieved, this appeal was filed. 4. It was submitted this Court had granted an interim order on 11.07.2024 and in meanwhile, suit had proceeded to commencement of trial. It was submitted while passing impugned order trial Court virtually held mini trial and spelt on title. Therefore, impugned order was contrary to law and called for interference. 5. On other hand, Sri G.V.Deshpande appearing for Sri Ananth Jahagirdar, learned counsel for defendant no.2 opposed appeal. It was submitted, impugned order passed by trial Court was on an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and therefore discretionary. Scope for interference with such order would be extremely limited. It was submitted while passing impugned order, trial Court had framed proper points for consideration and assigned reasons. Therefore, no interference was called. It was further submitted appeal was filed for dilation of proceedings. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3388 MFA No. 201907 of 2024 7. From above, since plaintiff is in appeal challenging order rejecting application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, point that would arise for consideration is : “Whether impugned order passed by trial Court is perverse and calls for interference ?“ 8. This appeal is against discretionary order passed by trial Court on an application under Section 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd.Mehtab Khan and others vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others1 has elucidated scope for interference against discretionary orders. It is held unless order would be contrary to material on record or perverse and even if view taken by trial Court was one of possible views based on material, there could be no interference. 9. Perusal of impugned order reveals that trial Court adverted to rival pleadings and assertions, framed proper points for consideration and passed reasoned order. There is no contention urged about any of material on record being left out for consideration. It is however seen that nature of findings 1 (2013) 9 SCC 221 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3388 MFA No. 201907 of 2024 touch upon merits of suit. Taking note of fact that trial Court was at interim stage, it would suffice to observe that said findings would be prima facie and only interim in nature and would not bind it at time of passing final judgment which would be on basis of evidence led during trial, it is held there would be no scope to interfere on merits. 10. However, while passing impugned order trial Court has imposed cost of `5,000/- which does not appear to be supported by proper reasons. In case, it would appear to trial Court that suit may be barred or belated, it would be at liberty to examine same under provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, order for payment of cost requires interference. Likewise, matter is set for trial and learned counsel for parties submitted that parties are not interested in exploring settlement at this stage and undertake to cooperate for early conclusion of suit. Point for consideration is therefore answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following order : i. Appeal is allowed in part only insofar as setting aside cost imposed and directing parties to appear before Lok-adalath. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3388 MFA No. 201907 of 2024 ii. It is clarified that observations by trial Court in course of impugned order would be confined to interim stage only and would not bind trial Court while passing final judgment. iii. Parties are directed to cooperate for early disposal by concluding cross-examination of witnesses within one or two dates after examination in chief. iv. Plaintiff shall conclude recording of evidence within three months from next date of hearing. v. Respondent to conclude recording of evidence within three months thereafter. vi. Trial Court to expedite disposal thereafter. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48 Ct;Vk