- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12904 MFA No. 6735 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6735 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MOHAMMED SAIFUDDIN, S/O Y.SALEEM PASHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. SRI. MOHAMMED FAISUDDIN, S/O Y.SALEEM PASHA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 3. SRI. Y. SALEEM PASHA, S/O. H. MOHAMMED YUSUF, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO. 192, MACKAN ROAD, NAUBAHARSHA COMPOUND, ARMSRONG ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. M.S. KOUSALYA, W/O M. MANI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT. NO.81, 28TH CROSS, OLD BAGALUR LAYOUT, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12904 MFA No. 6735 of 2024 BANGALORE - 560 084. 2. SRI. CHIKKEGOWDA S/O LATE KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 3. SRI. LAKSHMANA, S/O LATE KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT THANISANDRA VILLAGE, SRK. POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 077. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) ********** THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.6976/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-15, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12904 MFA No. 6735 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Appellants, who are the Defendants 1, 2 and 5 have filed the instant appeal challenging the order dated 10.09.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.6976/2022, by VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, wherein the application is allowed, restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. 2. The Trial Court has observed that the sale deed executed by defendants 2 and 3 is dated 02.12.2009, whereas the defendant No.5 is claiming his right through unregistered General Power of Attorney and Agreement of Sale. 3. The Trial Court upon finding that plaintiff has made out a prima facie case based on the said sale - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12904 MFA No. 6735 of 2024 deed, had granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from alienating the suit schedule property to any third parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that observations made at paragraph No.10 in the impugned order that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision SURAJ LAMPS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARAYANA reported in 2011 AIR SCW 6385 is not applicable in the present case, as it is coming in the way of the case of the appellants, while considering the suit on merits. Therefore, it is made clear that whether the said judgment is applicable or not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could be decided while passing the order on the merits and the Trial Court, while disposing of the suit shall not be influenced by the observation made by this Court, while considering the case on merits. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12904 MFA No. 6735 of 2024 5. Therefore, since there is no ground made out to interfere with the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT: BHK