- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46237 MFA No. 8650 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8650 OF 2023(CPC) BETWEEN: SRI K T VENKATESHNARAYANA @ VENKATESH, S/O LATE H THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE, KORATAGERE TOWN, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI G S VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI S LOKESH S/O D SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 14, 13TH MAIN ROAD, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGARA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU-560079. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MURALI N, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2022 PASSED ON I.A IN OS.NO.190/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, (ITENERATE) COURT, KORATAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46237 MFA No. 8650 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 18.11.2022 passed on I.A.No.1/2022 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.190/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, (Itenerate) Court, Koratagere1, thereby, the application filed seeking to grant an order of exparte temporary injunction was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff in brief that the plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule item No.2 property and the application for exparte temporary injunction filed only against the suit schedule item No.2 property is concerned; it is contended that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule item No.2 property by virtue of the 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46237 MFA No. 8650 of 2023 registered sale deed dated 30.08.1993 from one Zaibunnissa. Hence, filed the suit for declaration and for consequential relief of permanent injunction and filed application for temporary injunction, but it is dismissed. 4. It is the case of the defendant that he is owner of the suit schedule item No.2 property, but not the plaintiff and the Pattana Panchayath Khatha number is different. The defendant is owner of the suit schedule item No.2 property bearing Pattana Panchayath Khatha No.3162, but the plaintiff is claiming that it is his site by claiming that Pattana Panchayath Khatha No.3152. 5. Having heard the arguments from both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon considering the materials placed on record, the following points would arise for my consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46237 MFA No. 8650 of 2023 ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff has made out balance of convenience so as to grant an order of exparte temporary injunction? iii. Whether under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury? iv. Whether, the order passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court? 6. The Trial Court has dismissed the application filed for grant of an order of exparte temporary injunction assigning the reasons that when the plaintiff has asserted that he has purchased the suit schedule item No.2 property from one Zaibunnissa on 30.08.1993, but has not produced the sale deed dated 30.08.1993 and hence, the plaintiff has suppressed the facts; therefore, dismissed the application. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that before the Trial Court, the plaintiff has produced a copy of the sale deed dated 30.08.1993; in spite of it, the Trial Court has wrongly observed that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46237 MFA No. 8650 of 2023 same is not produced by the plaintiff and this is refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. 8. In this appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has produced a copy of the sale deed dated 30.08.1993 by producing a memo and submitted a copy of the sale deed was before the Trial Court while considering the application filed for grant of an order of exparte temporary injunction. The only prayer made by the appellant/plaintiff is to restrain the defendant from making alienation of the suit schedule item No.2 property. The plaintiff has produced a copy of the sale deed dated 30.08.1993 and prima facie, the boundaries shown in the sale deed and in the plaint schedule item No.2 property are tallied, but the only difference is in mentioning the Pattana Panchayath khatha numbers. 9. The plaintiff is asserting his Pattana Panchayath Khatha No.3152, whereas, the defendant is asserting his Pattana Panchayath Khatha number as 3162. Therefore, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46237 MFA No. 8650 of 2023 the only prayer in the application is not to make alienation of the suit schedule item No.2 property and if this is granted, there would not be any harm or injury to the defendant, otherwise if it is alienated, then the plaintiff would be put into loss and injury. Hence, the Court is of the opinion to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from making alienation of the suit schedule item No.2 property. Therefore, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. 10. Hence, if an order of temporary injunction is granted against the defendant/respondent restraining him from making alienation that would not cause any prejudice and injury to the defendant, but vice versa causes injury to the plaintiff. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion to grant an order of temporary injunction. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) to (iv) in the Affirmative. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46237 MFA No. 8650 of 2023 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed on I.A.No.1/2022 in O.S.No.190/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC (Itenerate) Court, Koratagere is hereby set aside. iii. The order of temporary injunction is granted in favour of the appellant/plaintiff restraining the respondent/defendant, his agents, servants, or anybody claiming under them from alienating/encumbering in respect of suit schedule item No.2 property till disposal of the suit. iv. No order as to costs. Whatever the observations made above are only for the purpose of considering the application of temporary injunction and shall not be considered as discussions and merits involved in the case; hence, the Trial Court is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46237 MFA No. 8650 of 2023 directed to consider the suit in accordance with law after receiving the evidence from both the sides independently without being influenced by any of the observations made above as expeditious as possible. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19