- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15733 MFA No. 1752 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1752 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KODI SRINIVASALU REDDY S/O SRI. K. SIDDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 88, 17TH 'D'MAIN, 6TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. 2. SRI. C. OBALA REDDY S/O SRI.C RAJA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 14-2, CTM ROAD, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 325. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ PUTTODU AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARASUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK -562 106. 2. SRI. M. NAGARAJU S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ PUTTODU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15733 MFA No. 1752 of 2025 RESIDING AT MARASUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106. 3. SRI. M. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ PUTTODU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARASUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106. 4. SMT. SARASWATHI W/O LATE P. GOPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARASUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106. 5. SMT. VINAYA REDDY D/O LATE P. GOPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARASUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106. 6. SMT. VINUTHA D/O LATE P. GOPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARASUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106. 7. SMT. RAVINDRAMMA W/O LATE M.P RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARASUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106. 8. SRI. PRADEEP S/O LATE M.P RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15733 MFA No. 1752 of 2025 RESIDING AT MARASUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106. 9 SMT. ASHA W/O LATE M.P MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARASUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106. 10. SMT. CHANDANA D/O LATE M.P MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARASUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106. 11. SRI. M. RAJASHEKARA REDDY S/O M. PULLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 100, 5TH BLOCK, 60 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 12. SMT. MUTHAMMA W/O LATE M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVAJI LAYOUT, IYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, WARD NO. 9, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 099. 13. SRI. MAHESH S/O LATE M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT SHIVAJI LAYOUT, IYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, WARD NO. 9, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15733 MFA No. 1752 of 2025 ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 099. 14. SMT. GUNAVATHI D/O LATE M. VENKATESH W/O HARISH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVAJI LAYOUT, IYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, WARD NO. 9, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 099. 15. SRI. MOHAN S/O LATE M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT SHIVAJI LAYOUT IYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, WARD NO. 9, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 099. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.1714/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, ISSUING SUIT SUMMONS TO DEFENDANTS BY RPAD. EMERGENT NOTICE ON I.A.NO. 1 TO DEFENDANT, RETURNABLE BY 04.4.2025. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15733 MFA No. 1752 of 2025 Defendant Nos.9 and 10 have filed the appeal being aggrieved by an exparte order dated 20.12.2024 granted by the trial Court in O.S.No.1714/2024. 2. According to the appellants/defendant Nos.9 and 10, the order of injunction ought to have passed on I.A.No.2, but it is passed on I.A.No.1. 3. Whatever may be the reason of granting exparte interim order of injunction, defendant Nos.9 and 10 have remedy to file application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for vacating the same, but instead of filing the application in this regard for vacating the exparte interim order of injunction directly filed appeal before this Court. 4. Therefore, unless the remedy for vacating the stay is exhausted, the appeal is not maintainable as per the observations of this Court in catena of decisions. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15733 MFA No. 1752 of 2025 5. However, liberty is reserved to defendant Nos.9 and 10 to file application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for vacating the exparte interim order of injunction. In such an event the application is filed, the trial Court is directed to consider the said application as per law on merits as expeditiously as possible. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42