- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9844 MFA No. 2988 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2988 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI NALLAPPA, RESIDING AT THOORANDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SUGATURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. BHAVYA A.C, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARADARAJ P.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, MAJOR, RESIDING AT MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K I A D B, ARAVINDA BHAVANA, OPP R B I, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H VENKATESHA DODDERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2024 Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9844 MFA No. 2988 of 2024 PASSED ON I.A.NOs.1 AND 3 IN OS. NO. 1135/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 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 Though the matter is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.1135/2023 has filed I.A.No.III under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, seeking to vacate the ex-parte order of temporary injunction dated 08.11.2023, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short) was allowed, thereby, an application filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking ad-interim order of temporary injunction to restrain defendant No.1 from receiving compensation amount from defendant No.2, was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9844 MFA No. 2988 of 2024 rejected. Therefore, the plaintiff is before this Court by filing the appeal. 3. Regarding prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are concerned, while granting of an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, the Trial Court has observed that the plaintiff has only produced copy of the official memorandum dated 20.07.1994, RTC’s pertaining to the suit schedule property. It is observed that the appellant/plaintiff has not produced even a single document except official memorandum to show that the same was granted in his name, but defendant No.1 has produced copy of family tree, official memorandum, saguvali chit, tax paid receipts, RTC’s, copy of notification, notices, applications etc., also produced copy of report dated 25.03.2023, mahazar and enquiry report along with copy of statement dated 05.09.2022 made by the plaintiff before the concerned authority. Therefore, documents produced by defendant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9844 MFA No. 2988 of 2024 No.1 show that the plaintiff has given a statement that he is not concerned to the suit schedule property. 4. Further, upon considering the documents produced by the plaintiff, it is prima facie shown that the plaintiff is resident of Thoorandahalli village of Kolar taluk. Whereas, defendant No.1 is resident of Muddenahalli village of Devanahalli Taluk. The suit schedule property is situated at Muddenahalli village, therefore, there is no evidence/material on part of the plaintiff to prove that how they are concerned to the suit schedule property and what point of time the plaintiff or his family members were residing in Muddenahalli village. Therefore, the Trial Court by observing that the plaintiff has not made prima facie case and hence there would no balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff and if an ad-interim order of temporary injunction is granted then it would cause more loss and injury to defendant No.1 than the plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in vacating the ex-parte order of temporary injunction by allowing I.A.No.III. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9844 MFA No. 2988 of 2024 5. Therefore, while considering the applications filed by both the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the Trial Court has not committed any perversity in perusing the materials produced before the Trial Court at the time of considering the applications. Hence, there would be case made by the defendant No.1. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34