- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31775-DB COMAP No. 309 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S PARTH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. GOPAL P SHINDHE, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 246, RAJANI GANDHA, GARDEN APARTMENTS, NO. 21, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. BIMLENDU KUMAR, S/O SHRI SUDHIR MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO. 423 RANKA PARK, RICHMOND CIRCLE, LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. 2. MR. AMBARISH KUMAR, S/O SHRI SHUDHIR MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. A-2202, LODHA DIORO, NEW CUFF PARADE, MUMBAI-400 037. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31775-DB COMAP No. 309 of 2025 THIS COMAP/COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT, BANGALORE (CCH- 87) ON I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC, IN COMOS NO.1155/2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru (CCH-87) [learned Commercial Court] on IA.No.4 in Com.OS.No.1155/2024. 2. The respondents were plaintiffs in the said suit and filed the said application inter alia praying that the appellant be restrained from removing or erasing the public notice affixed on the suit property containing information regarding the litigation between the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31775-DB COMAP No. 309 of 2025 3. The respondents claim to be absolute owners of the subject property. They state that they entered into a Leave and Licence Agreement dated 15.03.2022 with the appellant, whereby the appellant was put in possession of the subject property at a monthly licence fee of ₹50,000/-. The Leave and Licence was for a period of 10 months commencing from 04.12.2022 and expired by efflux of time. Thereafter, the respondents issued notice for evicting the appellant from the subject property. However, the appellant has not vacated the same. On the basis of the averments to the aforesaid effect, the respondents have filed the above-captioned suit. 4. Learned Commercial Court passed an ad-interim order dated 29.08.2024 restraining the appellant from subletting and/or handing over possession of the subject property to any third party. The said order was made absolute on 28.01.2025 after hearing the appellant. It is material to note that the said order interdicting the appellant from subletting the subject property or handing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31775-DB COMAP No. 309 of 2025 over possession to any third party, is not the subject matter of the present appeal. 5. It is the respondents' grievance that the information regarding the interim order had been placed at site and the appellant had removed/was removing the said notice affixed for cautioning third parties. The respondents apprehend the appellant may attempt to create any third- party rights. The learned Commercial Court had accepted the same and had passed the following order: "IA.No.4 is hereby allowed. It is hereby restrained the defendant, its agent, assignee, representatives etc. from removing or erasing the public notice affixed or to be affixed on the conspicuous part of the suit property containing the information of the present pending litigation. Issue temporary injunction accordingly." 6. We find no infirmity in the said order. The learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to point out any reason why the notice informing the public at large regarding the interim order passed by the Commercial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31775-DB COMAP No. 309 of 2025 Court should not be placed on site. He contends that the respondents have affixed a notice and the appellant has not taken any steps to remove the same and therefore, an ad-interim order was not necessary. 7. In view of the said submission, it is clear that the appellant is not prejudiced by the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40