Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 78232 (KAR)

SMT.SUSHEELAMMA v. MR. KUSHAL KUMAR S.A

MFA/2120/2025 · 2025-12-01

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49961 MFA No. 2120 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2120 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS 2. MR. NARESH. P.GOWDA. SON OF LATE B PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 109, OPPOSITE MILK DAIRY, SAMPIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBILI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 560064. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P M., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. KUSHAL KUMAR S.A S/O S.N.ANANDA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A LAKSHMI NARASIMHA NILAYA SAMPIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKUR POST YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 560073 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49961 MFA No. 2120 of 2025 THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.1275/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-7, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1275/2024 on the file of XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-7)1 thereby, the application filed for seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction was allowed. 2. The suit is filed for permanent injunction simplicitor, contending that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and there was lease deed 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49961 MFA No. 2120 of 2025 executed between the plaintiff and defendants on 22.09.2023 for the establishment of Petrol Bunk with a stipulation that the plaintiff has to pay security deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- and monthly rent of Rs.1,26,000/- subject to conditions in the lease deed. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that initially the plaintiff has paid security deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- through two cheques, but they were dishonoured. Subsequently, the plaintiff has paid the said security deposit through Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) transmission of money, but the plaintiff has become defaulter of payment of monthly rent as on today. However, when the plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of the Court for seeking an order of temporary injunction, his plea must be primarily based on the equity, but the plaintiff has not paid monthly rent as stated in the lease deed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49961 MFA No. 2120 of 2025 4. Now, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that he is going to pay monthly rent as stated in the lease deed to the appellants/defendants and if the appellants/defendants refuse to receive the amount, then the respondent/plaintiff will make an appropriate application before the Trial Court seeking permission to deposit the said amount, subject to compliance with the terms in the lease deed. With these observations, prays to dispose off the appeal. 5. The respondent/plaintiff is permitted either to make payment of rent amount to the appellants/defendants, or if the appellants/defendants refused to receive, then the respondent/plaintiff is given liberty to file appropriate application before the Trial Court to deposit the rent amount for the past and present. Hence, with these observations, the appeal is disposed off. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49961 MFA No. 2120 of 2025 6. If such an application is filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the Trial Court, then the Trial Court is directed to consider the said application as early as possible within a period of one (1) month from the date of filing of such application. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31