- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:812 MFA No. 105538 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.105538 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. OMKAR CHANDRASHEKHAR MIRJE, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLOL, TAL: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591201. 2. SHRI. KEDAR CHANDRASHEKHAR MIJRE, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLOL, TAL: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591201. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR RAMACHANDRA MIRJE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLOL, TAL: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591201. 2. SHRI. BHIMARAO RAMACHANDRA MIRJE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLOL, TAL: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591201. 3. SHRI. SUBHASH RAMACHANDRA MIRJE, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLOL, TAL: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591201. 4. SHRI. ASHOK MALLAPPA MIRJE, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLOL, TAL: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591201. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:812 MFA No. 105538 of 2024 5. SHRI. RAJASHEKHAR MALLAPPA MIRJE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKODI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591201. 6. SHRI. MAHESH ANNASAB MIRJE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLOL, TAL: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591201. 7. SHRI. MAHANTESH ANNASAB MIRJE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLOL, TAL: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591201. 8. SHRI. RAVI SHANKAR MIRJE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLOL, TAL: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591201. 9. SMT. AYESHA NAZIR TADASAKAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SATARA, TQ. AND DISTRICT: SATARA, STATE MAHARASHTRA-415001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KUMAR S.CHATTIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI AKSHAY R.MENSINAKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8; SRI SHARAD M.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R9) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKODI IN OS NO.120/2024 DATED 13.11.2024 ON I.A.NO.1 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:812 MFA No. 105538 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though the matter is listed for admission but with the consent of the learned counsel for parties, taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellants have filed suit for partition and separate possession and in the same suit I.A.No.1 was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to restrain the defendants No.1 to 3 and 9 from alienating the suit property to third parties during pendency of the suit. The said application was rejected. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal. 3. This Court after hearing the defendants/ respondents has passed the interim order pending consideration of the above appeal. The defendants were restrained from alienating the suit properties to third parties and it is in force till today. The suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties, which is not in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:812 MFA No. 105538 of 2024 dispute. The defendants have contended that there was earlier partition, which is a matter of trial to find out whether there was earlier partition or not. 4. It is submitted that some of the properties are sold out to defendant No.9. This fact is not disputed by the defendants. Therefore, it is the only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, if some of the suit properties are sold out to defendant No.9, then there would be multiplicity of proceedings causing hardship to the plaintiffs and also during pendency of the appeal, this Court has passed an interim order restraining the defendants from alienating the suit properties, which is in force as observed above. Therefore, the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case for honouring the application. If application filed by the plaintiffs is not allowed, then there would be multiplicity of proceedings. In order to avoid the said situation, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:812 MFA No. 105538 of 2024 5. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The order dated 13.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, in O.S.No.120/2024 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikkodi, is hereby set aside. iii. The application I.A No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.120/2024 seeking to restrain the defendants No.1 to 3 and 9 from alienating the suit properties to third parties during pendency of the suit is allowed. Therefore, defendants No.1 to 3 and 9 are restrained from alienating the suit properties, till disposal of the suit. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:812 MFA No. 105538 of 2024 iv. The trial Court is directed to dispose off the suit as early as possible. v. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19