- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14745 MFA No. 6915 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6915 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MEERA M.E. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI N. RADHAKRISHNA RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 103A, RANKA ENCLAVE, RAMAN C.V. ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080. 2. SRI. N RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF NANJUNDAPPA, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 103A, RANKA ENCLAVE, RAMAN C.V. ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU 080. 560 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NARENDRA H N AND SRI. AKSHAY S.M, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT PILLAMMA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI B.C. RAJANNA 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SRI B.C. RAJANNA Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14745 MFA No. 6915 of 2024 3. SRI B.R. BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SON OF SRI B.C. RAJANNA 4. SRI B.R. JAYARAMU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SON OF SRI B.C. RAJANNA 5. SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SRI B.C. RAJANNA ALL RESIDING AT BETTAHALSUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRAPPA V AND SRI. JAYACHANDRA REDDY K.R, ADVOCATES FOR C/R3 AND R1, R2,R4 AND R5) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NOs.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO. 626/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING THE I.A. NOs.1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH 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 Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14745 MFA No. 6915 of 2024 2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.626/2024 have filed this appeal against the order dated 27.08.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.626/2024 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) thereby, the applications filed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or anybody claiming through them from alienating, creating or developing, putting up construction over the suit schedule properties were dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs places reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14745 MFA No. 6915 of 2024 i. P.T. ANAND VS. D.M. ESHWARAPPA1. ii. TUKARAM GANU PAWAR VS. CHANDRA ATMA PAWAR2. iii. GOPAL KUMAR BHALOTIA AND ANR VS. ANIRUDH TRADE AND AGENCIES PVT. LTD AND ANR3. iv. GTZ (INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) VS. POWER ELECTRONIC ENGINEERS AND ORS4. v. MUNUSWAMY CHETTY VS. PONNUSWAMY NAIDU5. vi. P. RAMASUBBAMMA VS. V VIJAYALAKSHMI AND ORS6. 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are holders of an agreement of sale deed dated 31.12.2018, stating that the defendants are owners of the suit schedule properties. The total sale consideration of the agreement is Rs.1,50,00,000/- and out of which it is stated that the plaintiffs have paid an advance amount of 12011 SCC online Kar 1639 22010 SCC Online Cal 426 32010 SCC Online Cal 426 42009 SCC Online Cal 2162 5S.A.No.630/2012 62022 LiveLaw (SC) 375 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14745 MFA No. 6915 of 2024 Rs.99,00,000/-. Therefore, submitted that the substantial sale transaction amount was paid to the defendants, but the defendants have not come forward to execute the registered sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of contract. 6. In the suit, the plaintiffs being apprehensive that the defendants may alienate the property, have filed applications for temporary injunction, but were dismissed. 7. Whatever may be the delay in filing the suit that is after six years from the date of agreement, is to be considered in full-fledged trial. Admittedly, the defendants are owners of the suit schedule lands; if at this stage, an interim order of temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants from making alienation that would cause more injury to the defendants than the plaintiffs. The grant of order of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs would cause more injury to the defendants, as it restricts the defendants’ enjoyment over - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14745 MFA No. 6915 of 2024 the suit schedule property, when they are owners of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in dismissing the applications filed for temporary injunction. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be disposed of. 8. However, the Trial Court shall take recourse for expediting the trial and disposal of the suit as expeditiously as possible. For which, both the parties shall cooperate with the Trial Court for early disposal. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34