- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7996 WP No. 103879 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103879 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MARIO JOAOZINHO CAITAN FERNANDES, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R.O. H.NO.993/G(3/4), MOLYMA, PARADISE BACAHATT, GANDHI ROAD, RAIA VILLAGE, SALCETE, GOA-403720, REP. BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JAYAPAL S/O. DATTAA SHIRODKAR, AGED 73 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BHARADWAJ BUILDING, RUSHIWAN, ABHINAVBAGAR, KAJUPADA, MUMBAI-400066. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: DEEPAK S/O. SADANAND NETALKAR, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NARAYAN SHET ROAD, SONARWADA, BAAD, KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581351. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING, THE ORDER DATED 6-3-2025 PASSED IN M.A.NO.13/2024 BY PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM KARWAR MARKED AT ANNEXURE A BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER ON I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S. NO.207/2023 DATED 7-3-2024 BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KARWAR MARKED AT ANNEXURE B, CONSEQUENTLY I.A.NO. I IN O.S.NO.207/2023 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7996 WP No. 103879 of 2025 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. KARWAR BE REJECTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. This Court does not find need for issuance of notice to the respondent-plaintiff for the reason that this Court is not inclined to accept this petition and so also no adverse orders is passed against the respondent-plaintiff. 2. The respondent is the plaintiff who filed Original Suit No.207/2023 before the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Karwar, against the petitioner-defendant seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant his men, agents or anybody else claiming through or under him from dispossessing the plaintiff without due process of law. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction against the petitioner-defendant. The said application was rejected the trial Court at the first instance - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7996 WP No. 103879 of 2025 by order dated 07.03.2024. The same came to be challenged by the respondent-plaintiff before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Karwar in M.A. No.13/2024. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the order of rejection of the temporary injunction came to be to be allowed by the Appellate Court granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner-defendant is before this Court questioning the same on the following grounds. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that grant of injunction by the appellate Court is illegal, there is no balance of convenience, no prima facie case is made out and the respondent-plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable injury or hardship on dismissal or rejection of the application for temporary injunction. Learned counsel further contends that it is admitted by the respondent-plaintiff that he is the tenant and once a legal notice has been issued and the tenancy is terminated, the tenant would not have a right to continue in the premises - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7996 WP No. 103879 of 2025 and he would have to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the petitioner-landlord which has not been done and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking permanent injunction in which the interim order came to be rejected by the trial court is sustainable which ought to have been affirmed by the appellate Court but on the contrary, has reversed the order by granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he seeks to set aside the order passed by the appellate Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I do not find any need for issuance of notice to the respondent, as I am not inclined to accept the petition, contention and arguments put forth by the counsel for the petitioner-defendant. 5. I have perused the impugned order passed by the first appellate Court. There is no dispute with regard to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7996 WP No. 103879 of 2025 the petitioner-defendant being the owner of the suit schedule property and the respondent-plaintiff being the tenant. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the respondent-plaintiff without following due process of law and in the said suit, interim application came to be filed seeking temporary injunction. 6. The primary requirements while considering an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC are 3 namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship that would be caused to the aggrieved party and which would be more either to the plaintiff or to the defendant. 7. In the present case on hand, there is no dispute with regard to the respondent-plaintiff being a tenant and the petitioner-defendant being the landlord. Whether the tenancy has been terminated in accordance with law or not has to be decided in the due course of time in the relevant proceedings. When a simple suit for injunction is filed it has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7996 WP No. 103879 of 2025 to be appreciated on the prayer it is sought. Therefore, the appellate Court having appreciated these 3 aspects i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and the party who would suffer hardship, irreparable loss or injury, has come to the conclusion that it would be the respondent-plaintiff who would suffer more hardship and balance of convenience in favour of the respondent-plaintiff so also prima facie case having been made out, set aside the trial Court’s order and granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent- plaintiff. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the appellate Court in allowing the appeal and granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent- plaintiff. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following order: The petition is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Karwar, in M.A. No.13/2024, is upheld. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7996 WP No. 103879 of 2025 This petition is decided for the purpose of temporary injunction and the parties are at liberty to place materials to substantiate the main case. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE Kmv CT-MCK