- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48370 WP No. 26622 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.26622 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. RAVI, S/O. LATE A. N. MURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT. LAKSHMI NILAYA, WARD NO.20, AADARSH NAGAR OPPOSITE TO JJC MALUR MALUR TOWN MALUR 563 130. 2. SRI. SRINIVAS REDDY M. K., S/O. LATE SRI. M. A. KRISHNA REDDY R/AT. WARD 18 MALUR 563 130 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SHREERAM T. NAYAK.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S. PARVATHAMMA, W/O. LATE T.NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. SRI. N. VENKATA MOHAN, S/O. LATE T. NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3. SMT. PRATHIMA S., W/O. N. VENKATA MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 4. SMT.AISHWARYA V., D/O. N. VENKATA MOHAN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 5. SMT. SAISIRISHAA V., Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48370 WP No. 26622 of 2025 D/O. N. VENKATA MOHAN AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 6. KUMARI BRINDHA V. D/O. N. VENKATA MOHAN AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 7. KUMAR NIRMAL ADITHYA, S/O. N. VENKATA MOHAN AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS DEFENDANT NOS.6 & 7 ARE MINORS REP.BY THEIR FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI.VENKATA MOHAN DEFENDANT NOS. 1 TO 7 ARE R/AT THIRUMALA NILAYA, NEHRU EXTENSION MALUR - 563 130. 8. SRI. M. A. ANAND KUMAR, S/O. LT. M. K. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NANJAPPA LAYOUT ADARSHNAGAR MALUR - 563 130 RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2025 PASSED ON I. A. NO. 1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC IN O S NO.277/2025 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MALUR AT ANNEXURE- A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48370 WP No. 26622 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Notice to the respondents/defendants is not issued as this Court is inclined to take up this matter in view of the extreme urgency shown by the petitioner for grant of an ad-interim order of temporary injunction. 3. The trial Court vide order 23.6.2025 issued emergent notice on IA No.1 and suit summons to all the defendants. The notice to the respondents/ defendants has not been served. 4. The petitioners are none other than the plaintiffs. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance directing the defendants to allow the plaintiffs to carry out and complete the development work in the suit schedule property in terms of joint development agreement dated 27.05.2023; cancel the exchange deed dated 02.02.2024 registered on 07.02.2024, registered as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48370 WP No. 26622 of 2025 Document No. MLR-1-10262-2023-2024, in Book-1, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Malur only with respect to the suit schedule property; and for a direction to the defendants to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiffs to carry out and complete the development work in suit schedule property in terms of joint development agreement dated 27.05.2023 and for other consequential reliefs. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that along with the plaint, they have filed an application IA.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for issuance an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants their agents, representatives etc. from alienating and encumbering the suit schedule property or any portion thereof in any manner whatsoever. 6. The trial Court, instead of proceeding to pass orders on the ad interim application filed for non alienation of the suit properties as sought for in the IA No. 1 under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48370 WP No. 26622 of 2025 Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC has issued emergent notice to the defendants which is the subject matter before this Court. In view of the fact that the trial Court has not passed any order and merely issued a emergent notice, this petition is entertained taking into consideration the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. This Court also is of the opinion that the suit is filed for specific performance of the joint agreement dated 27.5.2023 and to cancel the exchange deed dated 02.02.2024 and for delivering vacant possession of the property. The petitioner has produced the joint development agreement dated 27.5.2023. 8. The joint development agreement is produced at Annexure - E. The petitioners since having produced a joint development agreement under Annexure-E, apparently it appears there is an agreement and there is a transaction of payment of Rs.50,00,000/- which has been received by the respondents/defendants. Therefore, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48370 WP No. 26622 of 2025 petitioners /plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case to show that there is joint development agreement between the petitioners and the respondents. 9. The prayer made in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC is for a direction to the respondents/defendants not to alienate or encumber the suit schedule property or any portion thereof during the pendency of the suit. When an application is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, it becomes the obligation and duty of the Court dealing with the said application to see the three essential ingredients to consider the application, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused to the aggrieved party if such order is not granted at the initial stage, prior to issuance of notice. 10. It is needless to mention that while passing any orders on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, it is the primary duty of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48370 WP No. 26622 of 2025 Court to see that the property in question and the subject matter of the suit is protected, preserved and no party is put to inconvenience or hardship as the suit is yet to be decided. 11. In the present case on hand, there is prima facie joint development agreement between the petitioners and the respondents. There is monetary consideration exchanged to an extent of Rs.50,00,000/- by the petitioners to the respondents. Under the circumstances, it becomes apparently necessary for the Court to preserve the status and nature of the property to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings at this initial stage. No doubt if the Court later on comes to the conclusion after the appearance of the respondents/defendants and they filing of the objections to the application, the reasons otherwise to vacate the order, the same could be vacated upon hearing both the parties. Under the circumstances, the trial Court having not passed the interim order, this Court upon perusal of the documents placed is of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48370 WP No. 26622 of 2025 opinion that there exists an element of urgency in the matter and the delay by issuance of notice would defeat the rights. Hence, the petitioners have made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience tilts in their favour, so also much hardship would be caused to the petitioners if an order is not granted at this stage. 12. The Court is of the opinion that this petition could be disposed of by passing an exparte ad interim order of Temporary Injunction. The matter could be decided by the trial Court upon the appearance of the defendants and objections, if any filed by them and by hearing the I.A. No.1 on merits without being influenced by the opinion expressed by this court, as the same is for the purpose of deciding the ad-interim exparte temporary injunction. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER i) The petition is Allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48370 WP No. 26622 of 2025 ii) The ad-interim exparte injunction is granted in favour of the petitioners. The respondents/ defendants and their agents and representatives are hereby restrained from alienating and encumbering the suit schedule property or any portion thereof in any manner whatsoever, in favour of third party, till the application is decided on merits. iii) It is made clear that the trial Court is at liberty to dispose of the application on its merits without being influenced by this order. iv) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of grant of an ad-interim exparte temporary injunction. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17