- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42778 MFA No. 7692 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7692 OF 2019 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. GIRIDHAR G.L. S/O. LATE SRI G.N. LAKSHMIKANTHA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13/1, CHANDRASHEKAR AZAD ROAD, GAVIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 019. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N.G. RAMAPRASAD S/O. LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.81, 1ST R BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. 2. C. RAJU S/O. SRI. CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.99, 3RD CROSS, E MAIN, KAVAL BYRASANDRA, R.J. NAGAR POST, NAGAMMA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHANARAJ R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DTD 14.01.2020) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42778 MFA No. 7692 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.8022/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-25), ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.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 ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by defendant No.2 questioning the order dated 05.07.2019 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.8022/2018 by the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-25). 2. The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration to declare the sale deed dated 28.01.2016 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as void and nonest and for consequent relief of injunction. 3. It is a case made out by the plaintiff in brief that though there was sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1, but defendant No.1 has not paid any consideration on it. Further, defendant No.1 had - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42778 MFA No. 7692 of 2019 sold the said suit property to defendant No.2. The grievance of the plaintiff is that sale consideration amount was not paid to plaintiff. Therefore, suit is filed. 4. Also, the Interlocutory Application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is filed and that was allowed by the trial Court and against which, the present appeal is filed. 5. The only order of temporary injunction is restraining the defendant No.2/appellant from making alienation of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that now the suit is set down for cross-examination of PW2. The suit is of the year 2018. Therefore, if appropriate direction is issued to dispose of the suit within a reasonable period, that would be sufficient. Therefore, considering the nature of order of temporary injunction granted and now the suit is set down for cross- examination of PW2, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42778 MFA No. 7692 of 2019 6. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of. 7. It is made clear that both the plaintiff and defendants shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments and shall cooperate for early disposal of the suit. 8. If the trial Court feels that if adjournment sought for is not for genuine reasons, then liberty is reserved to the trial Court to impose cost on the party who seeks adjournment. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31