- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8153 MFA No. 101333 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101333 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SUJATA W/O MRUTYUNJAYA SARANGHMATH, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HIREUPNAL, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587 125. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAHADEVAKKA W/O KUMARASWAMY CHOUKHIMATH @ JALIHAL, AGE: 85 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NIDAGUNDI, TQ: GAJENDRAGADH, DIST: GADAG-582 119. 2. SMT. RACHAMMA W/O UMAPATHI BHOOSNOORMATH, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TQ: AND DIST: GADAG-582 101. 3. SMT. SHARNAMMA W/O SHIVAMALLAYYA CHOUKHIMATH @ JALIHAL, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NIDAGUNDI, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8153 MFA No. 101333 of 2025 TQ: GAJENDRAGADH, DIST: GADAG-582 119. 4. SHRI. SHIVAMURTAYYA S/O SHIVAMALLAYYA CHOUKHIMATH @ JALIHAL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NIDAGUNDI, TQ: GAJENDRAGADH, DIST: GADAG-582 119. 5. SHIVALEELA W/O BASAVRAJ AGGIMATH, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NAREGAL, TQ: GAJENDRAGADH, DIST: GADAG-582 119. 6. SMT. ANDAMMA W/O SHARNAYYA BRUHANMATH, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BISANALLI, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583 238. 7. SMT. SHIVALEELA W/O SHIVAMURTAYYA CHOUKHIMATH @ JALIHAL, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NIDAGUNDI, TQ: GAJENDRAGADH, DIST: GADAG-582 119. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 TO R7-DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.03.2025 PASSED IN O.S. NO.77/2022 ON THE FILE THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RON, ON IA NO.4. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8153 MFA No. 101333 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) 1. This appeal is filed by the defendant No.6 under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 104 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) challenging the order dated 14.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.IV filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in O.S.No.77/2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’). By the said order, the Trial Court allowed the application and restrained the appellant/defendant No.6 from constructing or installing a petrol bunk in the suit schedule property bearing R.S. No.109/6, until disposal of the suit. 2. The appellant/defendant No.6 is a purchaser of one acre of land in R.S.No.109/6 of suit scheduled property from defendant No.4, under a registered sale deed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8153 MFA No. 101333 of 2025 3. The appellant submitted that the original suit is filed for partition and in the event the suit is decreed, defendant No.4 would be entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. The appellant, having purchased a portion of the property from Defendant No.4, who claims to be in lawful possession of the said extent. 4. It is further submitted that defendant No.6 is in the process of constructing a petrol bunk in the portion measuring one acre, which she has purchased. The appellant contends that if defendant No.4 is entitled to a share in the property, then she, as a purchaser from defendant No.4, is also entitled to develop the same, subject to the final outcome of the suit. 5. The appellant further submits that granting an order of temporary injunction, thereby restraining defendant No.6 from proceeding with construction, is not justified, particularly when the extent of defendant No.4’s - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8153 MFA No. 101333 of 2025 share is yet to be adjudicated and identified by metes and bounds. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that defendant No.6 is willing to proceed with the construction of the petrol bunk at her own risk and cost and undertakes not to claim any equity or special rights in future, in the event the suit is decreed against her vendor (defendant No.4). 7. In view of the above, and considering the nature of the suit as one for partition, this Court is of the opinion that the indiscriminate order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court restraining construction over the entire suit property is not proper or sustainable, particularly when defendant No.6 is ready to proceed without claiming equity and agrees to abide by the outcome of the suit. 8. The plaintiff will get share as per law along with defendant No.4. Then, when the defendant No.4 will get - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8153 MFA No. 101333 of 2025 one share and defendant No.6 purchased property from defendant No.4, then defendant No.6 right through defendant No.4. Hence, granting an injunction over the entire suit land is not proper. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.03.2025 passed in I.A. No.IV in O.S. No.77/2022 is hereby set aside. 10. However, it is made clear that if defendant No.6 proceed with the construction of the petrol bunk, the same shall be strictly at her own risk, and she shall not claim any equity or seek protection in respect of such construction in future. She shall also be bound by the final decree passed in the pending suit. 11. With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8153 MFA No. 101333 of 2025 12. In light of dismissal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, shall automatically stands disposed off. Order accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RHR/- CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 58 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8153 MFA No. 101333 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [SMT SUJATA W/O MRUTYUNJAYA SARANGHMATH VS. SMT MAHADEVAKKA W/O KUMARASWAMY CHOUKHIMATH ALIAS JALIHAL AND OTHERS] 25.07.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORDER ON ‘I.A.No.2/2025’ This Court, vide order dated 27.06.2025, has disposed off the appeal. In page No.7 at paragraph No.12 of the judgment, it is typed as ‘in light of dismissal of the appeal’. But it ought to have been typed as ‘in the light of disposal of the appeal’. Therefore, in page No.7 at paragraph No.12 of the judgment is modified to the extent above stated, which shall be read as under: “iv) In the light of disposal of appeal, pending applications, if any, shall automatically stands disposed off.” Registry to furnish fresh copy of judgment to the appellant. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8153 MFA No. 101333 of 2025 This order shall be read as part and parcel of the order dated 27.06.2025. Sd/- ( HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28