- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12995 MFA No. 8486 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. 8486 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K V NARAYANASWAMY S/O K. VENKATANAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO. 272, 17TH CROSS, OPP. JANATA BAZAR, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080. 2. SRI. K.V. RAMASWAMY, S/O K. VENKATANAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO. 39/A, BEHIND CITB CHOULTRY, SIDHARTHA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 011. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH.,ADVOCATE) AND: M/S BANK OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 599/A, NARAYANA NAGAR 1ST BLOCK, DODDAKALLASANDRA POST, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 062. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE SRI. VARUN N., S/O NARASINGA RAO, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12995 MFA No. 8486 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANOJ B G., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 8038/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-11) , ISSUING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION NOTICE OF I.A.NO. 1. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court being aggrieved by granting of ex-parte temporary injunction passed on I.A.No.3 dated 19.11.2024, in O.S.No.8038/2024 by VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short). 2. Sri. Dalwai Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellant Nos.1 to 3 submits that plaintiff has suppressed the fact regarding the compromise entered into before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4608/2019 and produced the documents along with memo. Further - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12995 MFA No. 8486 of 2024 submitted that for dispensing with the issuance of notice by the appellants, there is no compliance of Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of CPC and why notice is to be dispensed with and if ex-parte order of temporary injunction is not granted, then in what way it would defeat the right of the plaintiff is not stated in the order. Therefore, the very grant of the order of ex-parte temporary injunction is not correct. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 3. On the other hand, Sri. Manoj B.G., learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has not suppressed anything in the plaint and also pleaded in the plaint regarding the Civil Appeal Nos.4608/2019 and order dated 25.04.2019 and 03.05.2019. Just because individually as against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 the compromise entered is not stated, that does not amount to suppression of facts. But in general he has stated that disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. There are various contentions raised by both the sides. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12995 MFA No. 8486 of 2024 5. The impugned order is an ex-parte order of temporary injunction by dispensing with notice under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of CPC. The Trial Court has assigned some reasons as to why the notice is dispensed with by for granting an ex-parte order of temporary injunction. According to learned counsel for the appellant Nos.1 to 3 there is no reason mentioned in the order as to why the order of temporary injunction is granted and if notice is issued, by this delay in what way the rights of the plaintiff is affected, there is no mentioning in the order. 6. In support of this argument, he places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) The Aurville Foundation Vs. Natasha Storey in Civil Appeal No.13651/2024 decided on 17.03.2025. (ii) Gainda Ram and others Vs. M.C.D. Town Hall and others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 178 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12995 MFA No. 8486 of 2024 7. Whatever may be the dispute, when this being the rival contentions between the parties and trial Court has assigned some reasons why an ex-parte order of temporary injunction is granted from alienating and creating third party interest. According to the appellant Nos.1 to 3 this may not be the reason for dispensation of issuance of notice to the appellants. But the reasons assigned is that by playing fraud the defendant No.1 had executed the confirmation deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are none other than kith and kin of defendant No.1. At that time, defendant No.1 was president of the plaintiff-Society. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court after change of new management, the plaintiff-Society noticed the alleged fraud in passing resolution and execution of confirmation deeds. These are the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while granting ex-parte order of temporary injunction. 8. This Court would have inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court at this stage if there is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12995 MFA No. 8486 of 2024 suppression of facts in the plaint as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, but at paragraph No.8 the plaintiff has stated regarding the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil appeals. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, since the order passed is an ex-parte order of temporary injunction, the remedy available to the appellants and the appellants have to exhaust the remedy by filing an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC and in this regard, I place reliance on the following judgments: 1. Ramchandra Keshav Adke and Others Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and Others reported in AIR 1975 SCC 915. 2. Industrial Credit & Development Vs. B.Suryanarayana Bhat reported in AIR 1986 KAR 98. 3. Gopal Ahuja Vs Sanman Distributors Pvt. Ltd., reported in ILR 1993 KAR 3275. 4. Irannagouda Basanagouda Biradar Vs. Basanagouda Veerannagouda Biradar reported in ILR 1996 KAR 961. 5. Vokkaligara Sangha Vs. Pradeep reported in ILR 1994 KAR 1653. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12995 MFA No. 8486 of 2024 6. M/s. Parijatha and another Vs. Kamalaksha Nayak and others reported in ILR 1981 KAR 1433. 9. Therefore, reserving liberty to the appellants to move an application as per Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC, the appellants shall workout their remedy challenging the said order of temporary injunction granted. With the above observation, appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50