- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47880 MFA No. 7075 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7075 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. ASHWATHANARAYANA S/O LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT SULIBELE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE K.P. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. SRI. R MUNIRAJAPPA ALIAS MUNIANJINAPPA, S/O K P RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT UGANAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47880 MFA No. 7075 of 2025 3. SMT. MANJULA W/O R MUNIANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4. SMT. LEELA D/O R MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5. KUM. ASHA D/O R MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 6. KUM. KAVYA D/O R MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 7. KUM. GOWTHAMI D/O R MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 8. KUM. LATHA D/O R MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 9. KUM. SUJANA D/O R. MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, SL. NO. 3 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT UGANAWADI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 10. SRI. M THIPPAIAH S/O G. MUNIYAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47880 MFA No. 7075 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 11. M/S. PURUVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT , 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 227, S V ROAD, BANDRA WEST, MUMBAI - 400 050 AND HAVING ITS BENGALURU OFFICE AT NO. 130/1, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. NANI R CHOKSEY BY ITS SPA HOLDER, MR. J HARSHAVARADANA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R11) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO 2/2024 IN OS.NO. 879/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING THE IA.NO. 2/2024 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47880 MFA No. 7075 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff questioning the order passed on I.A.No.2/2024 in O.S.No.879/2007 dated 03.09.2025, whereby the application filed for temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.11 from altering the nature of the suit schedule properties, was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance by pleading that defendants are the owners of suit schedule property and defendant Nos.1 to 10 have executed an agreement of sale dated 21.08.2004 in favour of the plaintiff. Since, defendant Nos.1 to 10 have not come forward for executing the registered sale deed, the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance on 05.07.2007. In the meantime, defendant Nos.1 to 10 have sold the suit schedule properties to defendant No.11 on 20.07.2005. Therefore, it is submitted that the purchase - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47880 MFA No. 7075 of 2025 made by defendant No.11 is subsequent to the agreement of sale dated 21.08.2004 of the plaintiff. Therefore, prays for an order of temporary injunction and also prays for order of status quo. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for defendant No.11 submitted that defendant Nos.1 to 10 have sold the property on 20.07.2005 through registered sale deed and defendant No.11 is in possession and developed the land and also made construction on it and almost all the entire construction is completed. Further, it is submitted that the plaintiff though filed the suit on 05.07.2007, has not filed application for temporary injunction but filed application only in the year 2024. Therefore, this conduct of the plaintiff is observed in the trial Court in the order. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any order of temporary injunction. Therefore, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47880 MFA No. 7075 of 2025 5. Having heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials furnished in the appeal. The following points arises for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff make out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted then plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury? 6. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 to 10 have executed an agreement of sale on 21.08.2004 in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has paid part of sale consideration amount. It is the case of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47880 MFA No. 7075 of 2025 defendant No.11 that defendant Nos.1 to 10 have sold the property to defendant No.11 through registered sale deed dated 20.07.2005. After this event of sale made in favour of defendant No.11, the plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance on 05.07.2007. Prima facie the purchase made by defendant No.11 does not attract lis pendence under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 7. Furthermore, the plaintiff has filed suit on 05.07.2007 but has not filed application for temporary injunction but filed application for temporary injunction in the year 2024. By that time as per the material produced by the counsel for defendant No.11 viz., approved layout plan, conversion order, photographs, approval from RERA on prima facie go to show that defendant No.11 has developed the land and put up construction on it. Therefore, defendant No.11 by virtue of sale deed is in possession. This shows that defendant No.11 is in possession over the property. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47880 MFA No. 7075 of 2025 8. Therefore, the plaintiff fails to make out prima facie case and balance of convenience and even if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiff will not suffer any loss or injury. Therefore, my answer to point Nos.1 to 3 is in the negative. 9. However, the suit is pending before the trial Court for consideration. Hence, defendant No.11 shall not claim equity in case the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Also, directed defendant No. 11 to disclose the pending litigation in the suit to the intending prospective purchasers on the suit schedule property by producing copy of this order and even if any intending purchaser purchases the property, it is at their risk of the litigation, and they cannot claim any equity even after knowing he/she purchases the site or house. 10. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47880 MFA No. 7075 of 2025 11. This Court has ordered for expeditious trial in the year 2023, but it is submitted that the suit is at the stage of trial and the plaintiff evidence is yet to begin. Therefore, it is directed that both the parties to co-operate with the trial for expeditious trial without seeking any adjournments. 12. The Trial Court shall decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT: BHK