- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22954 MFA No. 6334 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6334 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRINIVAS N S/O. LATE. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.161, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VITTAL NAGAR, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 078. 2. SMT. GOWRI W/O. SRINIVAS N, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.161, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VITTAL NAGAR, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 078. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M. J. ALVA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MEGHARAJ S/O. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO. 102, CAUVERY NADI ROAD, 1ST MAIN, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019. Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22954 MFA No. 6334 of 2024 2. SMT. KOKILA W/O. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO. 102, CAUVERY NADI ROAD, 1ST MAIN, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019. 3. SURESH S/O. LATE. GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO. 102, CAUVERY NADI ROAD, 1ST MAIN, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019. 4. ANUSHA @ AMRITHA VARSHINI D/O. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO. 102, CAUVERY NADI ROAD, 1ST MAIN, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019. 5. SMT. GOWRI W/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO. 102, CAUVERY NADI ROAD, 1ST MAIN, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019. 6. NAGARAJ S/O. GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO. 43, BARLEY STREET, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22954 MFA No. 6334 of 2024 7. SMT. GEETHA W/O. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO. 43, BARLEY STREET, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 025. 8. SMT. SUGUNA W/O. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO. 43, BARLEY STREET, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 025. 9. MANJUNATHA S/O. SHAMBASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO. B-90, 1ST CROSS, SAMIPURA, K. G. NAGAR, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIKANTH S., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.1 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.1156/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, CCH-36, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE IA.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22954 MFA No. 6334 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants being plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1156/2024 have preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 03.09.2024 passed on IA Nos.1 and 3 by the XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 2. The plaintiffs have described the suit schedule property in the schedule appending to the plaint. O.S.No.1156/2024 has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their man, relatives etc., from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in any manner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22954 MFA No. 6334 of 2024 3. In the said suit, IA No.1 was filed seeking temporary injunction. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the plaintiffs have filed similar suit in O.S.No.6662/2018 seeking relief of partition and separate possession to grant 1/5th share each to the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property by dividing the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. The copy of the plaint is produced by the appellants at Annexure-G. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel Sri.M.J.Alva for the appellants that, the appellant No.2, the wife of Sri.Srinivas.N., arrayed as appellant No.2 is not a party in O.S.No.6662/2018. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Srikanth.S., for respondents submits that, when already a title suit in O.S.No.6662/2018 is pending on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, the appellants could not maintain O.S.No.1156/2024 seeking the bare relief of injunction. Remedy is very much available to the plaintiffs to seek a similar relief in the said suit as against the defendants. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22954 MFA No. 6334 of 2024 6. I have scrupulously perused the plaint averments in O.S.No.6662/2018 as well as plaint averments in O.S.No.1156/2024. Evidently O.S.No.6662/2018 is the title suit and the plaintiffs therein have claimed the same as 1/5th share each in the suit schedule property. No doubt, appellant No.2 is not a party to the said suit. The plaintiffs in the said suit can very well implead the appellant No.2 in the said suit so as to avoid technicalities. When a partition suit is pending before the City Civil Court between the same parties, the similar plaintiffs cannot maintain a parallel suit in O.S.No.1156/2024 and seek the injunctive relief. This suit can be termed as an interlocutory application. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated supra, this appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellants to seek similar relief in the said title suit, which would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22954 MFA No. 6334 of 2024 8. However, the liberty is given to the appellants to seek similar relief if advised. The appellants are permitted to bring the present appellant No.2 on record in the said suit by filing appropriate application. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18