- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47909 MFA No. 8446 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8446 OF 2023 (CPC) BETWEEN: AKULA SANDEEP KUMAR S/O KRISHNA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 403 SRI. RESIDENCY, 1ST CROSS, PAPPANNA LAYOUT NEAR MAITHRI BZAARI, MORE SUPER MARKET, V NAGENHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. M PRABHAVATHI W/O C.R. LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 277, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 071. REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER MR. R.L. MYUR SUPRATHIK, S/O C.R. LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO. 277, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 071. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47909 MFA No. 8446 of 2023 2. M/S. SUNRISE GROUP REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.780 9TH A MAIN, INDRANAGAR, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS. 3. SRI. B RAJANNA S/O VARADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 25, BENDIGNAHALLI, MANDUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049. 4. SMT. M.S. DHANALAKSHMI W/O R SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 5. SRI. JYOTHIR TEJOMAY S S/O R SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT 424, 4TH G MAIN ROAD, HRBR LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK, KALYANNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043. 6. SMT. PUSHPALATHA S,K W/O AKULA SANDEEP KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 403, SRI RESIDENCY 1ST CROSS, PAPANNA LAYOUT, NEAR MAITHRI BAZAAR, MORE SUPER MARKET, V NAGENHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 19.11.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.10.2024, NOTICE TO R2 TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47909 MFA No. 8446 of 2023 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.476/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING IA NO.1 AND 2 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.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 present appeal is filed by the appellant/ defendant No.5 questioning the order passed on I.A.Nos.1 & II in O.S.No.476/2023 dated 05.08.2023 by the Court of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction. 2. The appellant is defendant No.5 who have purchased the site from defendant No.1 partnership Firm. There were inner disputes among the partners and there was reconstitution of partnership deed. Thereafter, excluding the plaintiff, the other defendants who are partners in the Firm have executed registered sale deed in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47909 MFA No. 8446 of 2023 favour of appellant/defendant No.5 and by virtue of this, the appellant/defendant No.5 is in possession of the suit property. When this being the fact, the inner disputes among the partners of the partnership Firm, the purchaser's right cannot be affected. This Court in M.F.A. No.6405/2023 and connected matters dated 10.10.2023 ordered allowing the appeals filed by the purchasers and vacated the order of injunction. Therefore, the present appeal is also purely covered by the above said order. Hence, when this being the fact, if there is inner disputes among the partners of the Firm that can be worked out by the partners in the other arbitral proceedings and the said proceedings are pending in Commercial Arbitration Application No.9/2022 before the Commercial Court. In the said proceedings, there is stay not to alienate remaining sites but the site purchased by appellant No.5 is not coming within the subject matter of the proceedings in Commercial Court. Therefore, when appellant No.5 is shown to be the prima facie owner of the property - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47909 MFA No. 8446 of 2023 throughout the proceedings in the partnership deed duly executed by other partners, then the rights of the appellant shall not be affected by virtue of the interim order of injunction. Therefore, it is a fit case to vacate the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court is vacated. 4. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29