- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30803 MFA No. 7819 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7819 OF 2015 (CPC) BETWEEN: YARAGATUPALLI RADHA KUMAR REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, SON OF JOGI REDDY, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.203, CHAITANYA SIKHARA APARTMENTS, ADITYA NAGAR, NELLORE -524 002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) AND: HOYSALA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED, UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.104, GROUND FLOOR, INFANTRY TECHNO PARK, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.S.H. REDDY & SRI. SANDEEP.S.MURTHY, ADVOCATES) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2015 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN O.S NO.1468/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING IA NO.III FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30803 MFA No. 7819 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 08.09.2015 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in O.S.No.1468/2014 on I.A.No.III filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, thereby, the prayer to grant order of status-quo is rejected. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract as per the agreement of sale dated 16.12.2011 and to declare the gift deed dated 04.02.2013 and the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.4 is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed I.A.No.I under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 praying for order of temporary injunction and I.A.No.III is filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30803 MFA No. 7819 of 2015 grant of order of status-quo. The applications were dismissed. 3. Against the order of dismissal of I.A.Nos.I and III, MFA No.7818/2015 is filed as against the dismissal of I.A.No.I for order of temporary injunction and the present appeal is filed in respect of I.A.No.III seeking for order status quo. 4. Subsequently, the plaintiff has withdrawn MFA No.7818/2015. Therefore, the only appeal remained is MFA No.7819/2015, which is for order of status-quo. 5. In view of not pursuing I.A.No.I seeking relief of temporary injunction by withdrawing MFA No.7818/2015 and since the order of status quo is consequentially effect, the appeal has also become infructuous. 6. Admittedly, the defendant No.4 is the owner and the plaintiff is merely an agreement holder. It is the prayer of plaintiff seeking temporary injunction against the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30803 MFA No. 7819 of 2015 defendant No.4 not to alienate the suit schedule property to any third party, but the same is rejected. Now the much water is flown. It is submitted that now the suit is shut down for recording evidence of plaintiff. Therefore, the only recourse to be made in this appeal is issuing direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit as early as possible within a period of one year. 7. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. It is made clear that both the parties shall cooperate with the trial Court for early disposal of suit without seeking unnecessary adjournment. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6