- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15436 MFA No. 7242 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7242 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. UDAY KUMAR, S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI, R.T.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUMATHI S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A.BABU, S/O AMIR SAB, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.126, 5TH CROSS, VIJAYALAKSHMI NILAYA, BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS, MANDYA, KARNATAKA. 2. INAYATH ASADULLA, S/O AMEER JAN, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.24/2-1, 1ST CROSS, NEHRU ROAD, MANJUNATHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 026. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15436 MFA No. 7242 of 2024 3. SMT. PARAVIN TAJ, W/O MOHAMMED YOUSAF, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.32, CHILUVADIPALYA, 1ST CROSS, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 560 053. 4. IMITIYAZ KHAN, S/O RAHIM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.73, 4TH MAIN, SULTHANPALYA MAIN ROAD, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032. 5. SAMEERA BEGUM, W/O IMTIYAZ KHAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.73, 4TH MAIN, SULTHANPALYA MAIN ROAD, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VIJAYA M.N., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NOs.1 AND 2 IN OS.NO.25195/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU CCH-74, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, AND ALLOWING THE IA.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15436 MFA No. 7242 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the common order dated 10.09.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.25195/2024 on the file of LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short), the present appeal is filed. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the plaintiff's father had acquired site No.3 from a partition deed dated 14.09.2012, whereas the defendants were claiming the same under an unregistered General Power of Attorney dated 27.12.1992 stated to have been executed by one late Chikkamuniyappa. According to the plaintiff, the said unregistered General Power of Attorney is a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15436 MFA No. 7242 of 2024 forged one. Initially, an application was filed by the plaintiff seeking ad interim order of temporary injunction and the same was granted. Subsequently, an application was filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC by defendant Nos.4 and 5 seeking to vacate the ad interim order granted by the trial court. The trial court, by the impugned order, has allowed I.A.No.2 filed by defendant nos.4 and 5 and vacated the ex parte order of injunction granted and dismissed I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction. Therefore, the present appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that defendant Nos.4 and 5 have put up construction up to the first floor and therefore, she prays for grant of an order of temporary injunction restraining them from putting up further construction. 4. Learned advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that the entire construction of the house is completed and house warming ceremony is also - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15436 MFA No. 7242 of 2024 celebrated. The photographs are produced to that effect which would show that the construction of the entire house has been completed. When this being the fact, there is no need to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.4 and 5 from putting up further construction when the entire construction of the house is completed. 5. It can be observed that since there is a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 and 5 over the suit schedule property, the entire construction on the suit schedule property is subject to result of the suit and defendant Nos.4 and 5 shall not claim any equity in respect of the building constructed over the suit schedule property. 6. Therefore, with the observation that whatever construction made on the suit schedule property by defendant Nos.4 and 5 is subject to result of the suit and defendant Nos.4 and 5 shall not claim any equity in this regard, the appeal stands disposed of. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15436 MFA No. 7242 of 2024 Pending IAs. if any, is accordingly disposed of. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32