- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17104 MFA No. 8235 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8235 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. DR.KOKILA. S. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O DR. SHRIDHAR SHETTY 2. DR. SHRIDHAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE RAGHURAM SHETTY, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.112, 4TH CROSS, HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BEHIND BBMP OFFICE, MEI LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 073. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A. RANJAN PRASAD AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O SHRIDHAR BHANDARY R/A NO.45, SHANTHINAGAR ARASINAKUNTE, NEAR ST MARY’S CHRUCH NELAMAGNALA, BENGALURU. 2. SANKET. M, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O DAMODARA SHETTY .M, R/AT NO.703, 7TH FLOOR PRATHAM CASA SERENE APARTMENT, PRASHANTH NAGAR, S M ROAD, Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17104 MFA No. 8235 of 2024 JALAHALLI CROSS BENGALURU – 560 057. 3. MANOJ KUMAR AGED 38 YEARS S/O KANHYAYALAL R/AT NO.81, 4TH MAIN ROAD GANGANAGAR EXTENSION, HEBBAL ,BINNY MILL ROAD, GANGANAGR, BENGALURU – 560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR & SRI. ABHISHEK SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; R2 IS SERVED; SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.1774/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-11, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1774/2024 have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 10.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1774/2024 on the file of VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17104 MFA No. 8235 of 2024 Bengaluru City, Bengaluru (CCCH-11) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) thereby, the application filed for temporary injunctions is allowed restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s functioning of the suit schedule property in any manner till disposal of the suit. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. Plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein by contending that the plaintiff is a sub-lessee from 24.01.2024 from respondent No.3-Manoj Kumar and that the plaintiff is running the hospital. However, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule hospital. Hence, filed the suit for permanent injunction by contending that as on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff was running the hospital and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17104 MFA No. 8235 of 2024 also filed an application for temporary injunction. The Trial Court has allowed the application and granted an order of temporary injunction. 4. Against this, defendant Nos.1 and 2 (appellants herein) have preferred this instant appeal. 5. Heard the arguments from both sides. 6. Learned counsel for appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submitted that they are running the hospital physically by employing doctors and other supporting staff and they are paying salaries and also paying electricity bills, being sub-lessees from 01.04.2021 valid up to 31.03.2026. Therefore, it was submitted that the appellants are running the hospital and as per deed of sub-lease, the appellants have a legal right to run the hospital till 31.03.2026. However, in the meantime the plaintiff has created one more lease deed in favour of plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein); therefore, the plaintiff - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17104 MFA No. 8235 of 2024 rivalry contending that he is running the hospital as on the date of filing the suit. 7. When this is the rival claim by both the parties, this Court on 07.04.2025 ordered for the appointment of Court Commissioner to seek a physical report as to who is running the hospital physically on the date of appointment of the Court Commissioner. An advocate was appointed as court Commissioner in this regard. 8. Learned Court Commissioner submitted report stating that on 08.04.2025 at 11.30. am., he visited the schedule property/hospital and recorded the statement of doctors and supporting staff in the hospital. According to the statements of doctors and other supporting staff working in the hospital, they were employed by appellant No.2 to work in the schedule property/hospital. Therefore, the report of the Court Commissioner that as on the date of carrying out commission work on 08.04.2025, the appellants are running the hospital physically by engaging doctors and other supporting staff. However, it is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17104 MFA No. 8235 of 2024 submitted by the learned counsel that as on the date of filing of suit, it is not clear as to who was in possession of the schedule property/hospital. Therefore, the Court Commissioner’s report shows that as on 08.04.2025, the appellants are running the hospital and till today they are running the hospital physically. 9. Considering the fact that whether as on the date of filing the suit, the plaintiff was running the hospital physically, but there are no materials produced. Though the plaintiff has produced electricity bills and salary/payment details of the employees, those are in the name of Acharya Tulasi Jain hospital. The salary slips show that the salaries are paid by Acharya Tulasi Jain hospital, but not by the plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed error in arraying the prima facie case that the plaintiff is running the hospital. Furthermore, the appellants have produced partnership deed entered between the appellants and Acharya Tulasi Jain hospital. Further, the materials produced by the appellants, which - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17104 MFA No. 8235 of 2024 include certificate of registration issued by the Government of Karnataka, Department of Health and Family Services, degree certificate certifying the Karnataka Medical Council of Acharya Tulasi Jain hospital, PAN card of Acharya Tulasi Jain Hospital and Bank passbook showing the statements and salaries paid to the doctors and supporting staff by Acharya Tulasi Jain hospital. The sub-lease deed dated 01.04.2021 between M/s. Jain Pharma and appellant No.1, with a period of sub-lease from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2026, therefore, all these prima facie show that the appellants are physically running the hospital. Moreover, the plaintiff is not a medical degree holder, as per the submission made by the counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1, but it is the submission made by the counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 that the plaintiff is running the hospital through doctors, whereas the appellants themselves with medical degrees. 10. Therefore, upon comparing these two scenarios, the case of the appellants/defendants is more probable to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17104 MFA No. 8235 of 2024 show a prima facie case that appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 are running the hospital. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed error in appreciating the materials produced while considering the application filed for temporary injunction. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court is perverse. Therefore, the order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court requires interference. Accordingly, the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1774/2024 on the file of VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru (CCCH-11), is hereby set aside. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17104 MFA No. 8235 of 2024 iii. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. iv. The respondents shall not evict the appellants unless due process of law. v. No order as to costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11