- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17548 MFA No. 3277 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3277 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. GIRIJA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O. SRI. V.M.RAGHU RESIDING AT NO.3, 17TH MAIN ROAD AGS LAYOUT, AREHALLI, BENGALURU-560061. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DWARAKANATH H. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAVI A KUNDER AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O SRI. ANAND M KUNDER 2. SMT. REKHA R KUNDER AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O. SRI. RAVI A KUNDER BOTH RESIDENTS OF NO.1006 'C' WING, CENTURY INDUS, K.G.ROAD, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098. 3. M/S. GREY BRICKS PROPERTIES LLP REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER SRI. DINESH PALLIPATI S/O. SRI. P.BHASKAR NAIDU AT NO.113, 11TH MAIN, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17548 MFA No. 3277 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.08.04.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.2599/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 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 Defendant No.1 has preferred this appeal challenging the exparte order of temporary injunction dated 08.04.2025 passed on IA No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, by the Court of XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that without assigning any reasons, the Trial Court has granted exparte order of temporary injunction. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17548 MFA No. 3277 of 2025 3. But upon perusal of the impunged order, the Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the plaintiffs had passed the exparte order of temporary injunction. Whatever may be the reason of granting exparte interim order of injunction, defendant No.1 has 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 has 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. 5. However, liberty is reserved to defendant No.1 to file application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure for vacating the exparte interim order of injunction. In such an event, if the application is filed, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17548 MFA No. 3277 of 2025 Trial Court is directed to consider the said application as per law on merits as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49