- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15310 MFA No. 1800 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1800 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. S PRASHANTH KUMAR S/O SRI H SHAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.515, NEAR SRINIVASA MENS WEAR, NEAR SREE ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, ND BLOCK, PEENYA, 1ST STAGE, PEENYA, BENGALURU - 560 058 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMPATH. A, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. DINESH. R S/O SRI D RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 2892 14TH MAIN, E BLOCK, NEAR COMMUNITY HALL ROAD 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.N.SHANKAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.6890/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15310 MFA No. 1800 of 2025 XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6890/2018 by XXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-14), thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property by virtue of registered General Power of Attorney dated 09.01.1997 and thereafter, obtained katha in his favour and paying taxes and betterment charges and further he obtained electricity and water connections to the suit property. Thus, in this way, the plaintiff is claiming title over the suit property. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15310 MFA No. 1800 of 2025 3. On the other hand, the defendant has stated that the land bearing Sy.No.1/2, on which, the site formed was acquired along with other lands in other survey numbers from HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society for formation of layout and accordingly, HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society has formed layout and allotted the sites in favour of its members and the defendant is claiming title through HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society through the registered sale deed dated 23.11.2017. Thus, in this way, the defendant is claiming title through the said registered sale deed by the HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society. 4. When this being the fact, at the most, the plaintiff is claiming title over the property through the General Power of Attorney holder. Furthermore, it is alleged that there were irregularities and illegalities by the then office bearers of the Society and have randomly allotted the sites and even some other sites, which are not - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15310 MFA No. 1800 of 2025 in existence. In this way, one of the office bearers of the Society had executed General Power of Attorney to the vendor of the plaintiff. 5. Under these circumstances, the trial Court on considering this case had formed opinion that there is no prima facie case. Accordingly, dismissed the application filed for temporary injunction. 6. However, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had obtained katha, taxes and betterment charges are paid. Thus, he is claiming his possession. But the plaintiff is claiming only through General Power of Attorney. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application as the plaintiff has no prima facie case. 7. Admittedly, the suit property is a vacant site. Therefore, it is appropriate to give direction to both the parties to maintain status-quo pending disposal of the suit in regard to possession as on today and status-quo order is also to the effect not to change the nature of land till - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15310 MFA No. 1800 of 2025 the disposal of the suit. However, it is directed to the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. 8. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of. In view of disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and it is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39