- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29663-DB COMAP No. 28 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. N.V LAKSHMI W/O LATE M JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. KUMARI J RAVEENA GOWDA D/O LATE M JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 3. KUMARI J KEERTHANA GOWDA D/O LATE M JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.117, B-1, VAISHNAVI SHLOKA, N.R.COLONY, A-CROSS, MURGESHPALYA, HAL POST, BENGALURU-560 017 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S BULLS EYE OUTDOOR SOLUTIONS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29663-DB COMAP No. 28 of 2023 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, KHIVRAJ MANSION, 10/2, KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. 2. MR RAJESH REDDY PYDA S/O P.S. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.368, 8TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079. 3. MR VIKRAM MADHU MASAND S/O M.N MASAND, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.342, RANKA PARK APARTMENTS, 4, 5 & 6, LALABAGH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. 4. MR. ARUN KUMAR BALASUNDARAM, S/O L.BALASUNDARAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.1619, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 'E' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 010. 5. MR. SAINIKRAJ CHORDIA S/O DEVARAJ CHORDIA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.1156, 12TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038. 6. MRS ARUNA DEVI CHORDIA W/O PUSHPCHAND CHORDIA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29663-DB COMAP No. 28 of 2023 R/AT NO.1156, 12TH MAIN 4TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038. 7. MS. AARADHANA D/O M.K. AIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.2707, 2ND CROSS, BEL LAYOUT, HAL 3RD STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 075. 8. SHRI. PUSHPACHAND CHORDIA S/O SHRI SINIKRAJ CHORDIA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.1156, 12TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038. 9. SHRI PAKALAPATI VEERA RAGHAVA RAO S/O SHRI. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.21, WATER WOODS APARTMENT, RAMAGONDANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 066. 10. M/S ANJANI CONSTRUCTIONS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PAVANI ROYALE, 1ST CROSS, GREEN GARDEN LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI GATE, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER, SHRI P.V. RAGHAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNA RAO K.N, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R3 & R8, SRI. HARISH IUMAR M.S, ADVOCATE FOR R10, R2, R4, R5, R6, R7, R9-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29663-DB COMAP No. 28 of 2023 THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, R/W ORDER 43 RULE 1 (R) OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO ADMIT THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL, CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-84) IN COMMERCIAL O.S. NO. 129/2020, PERUSE THE SAME, HEAR THE PARTIES AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS: (A) TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 ON I.A. NO. V PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-84) IN COM.O.S.NO. 129/2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.A NO. V FILED BY THE APPELLANTS UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This Commercial Appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 praying to set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 passed on I.A No.V in Com.OS.No.129/2020 on the file of the LXXXIII Addl. City Civil and District Judge at Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as "the learned District Judge") and consequently, allow the same. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29663-DB COMAP No. 28 of 2023 3. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late M Jayaram, who was one of the partners of defendant No.1-Partnership Firm. Defendant Nos.2 to 8 herein are also partners of the said firm. Plaintiffs' predecessor late M. Jayaram alone held 45% stake and remaining 55% stake were held by defendant Nos.2 to 8. 4. Consequent to the death of plaintiffs' predecessor M. Jayaram, dispute arose inter-se between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 8 and thereafter, they entered into a reconstituted partnership firm amongst themselves without settling the accounts of late M. Jayaram, under whom the plaintiffs are claiming interest as Class-1 legal heirs. 5. Plaintiffs - the mother, widow and dependent children of Jayaram approached defendant Nos.2 to 8 to induct them as partners in the place of late partner M. Jayaram or else to settle the account of late Jayaram who had 45% stake in the partnership. 6. Defendant Nos.2 to 8 created documents to refuse legitimate share of late M. Jayaram to which the plaintiffs have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29663-DB COMAP No. 28 of 2023 succeeded giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiffs to file instant commercial suit for dissolution of the partnership of defendant No.1- Partnership Firm, rendition of accounts and to settle the entitlements of late M. Jayaram to the plaintiffs. 7. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed interlocutory application for restraining alienation of the schedule property by defendant Nos.2 to 8 which is standing in their name. Defendant Nos.2 to 8 thereafter intended to change the nature and characteristics of the schedule property lis pendens with a view to collect large sum of money to construct commercial building and to part with possession on rental basis or otherwise detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs. Immediately, the plaintiffs filed the application under order XXXIX rules 1 & 2 of CPC to restrain defendant Nos.1 to 8 from developing the schedule property thereby altering the nature of the schedule property. The learned District Judge though having earlier held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and passed the restraint order on alienation, however, dismissed the application in I.A.No.V filed by the plaintiffs restraining defendant Nos.1 to 8 from changing the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29663-DB COMAP No. 28 of 2023 nature and characteristics of the land in question by development. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are before this Court in this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Prakash Timmanna Hebbar for the appellants, learned counsel Sri Krishna Rao K.N for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 8 and the learned counsel Sri. Harish Kumar M.S for respondent No. 10 and also perused the impugned order so also the record placed before us. 9. While dismissing I.A No. V filed by the plaintiffs in Com.OS.No.129/2020, the learned District Judge has observed in paragrah-11 as under: "11. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that, the construction is going on in violation of rules and regulations and the construction is illegal construction etc. As such when the right of the plaintiff in the firm itself is disputed and is to be adjudicated, the developmental activities in the property cannot be restrained and stopped. Anyhow, construction which is undertaken and is in progress in the schedule property would be subject to the result of the suit. Since plaintiffs have already objected for this construction and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29663-DB COMAP No. 28 of 2023 raised objection by filing this application, defendants would not be entitle to claim any equity at a later stage. If the entitlement of the plaintiffs is upheld then the plaintiffs would be benefited from such development and therefore there are no grounds to hold that, plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury in the event of construction coming up in the schedule property. Since there is already an order against alienation, construction to be done in the property would be subject to order already in force." 10. The learned District Judge has rightly observed that, the plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of order of temporary injunction against construction in the schedule property. Even the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiffs. 11. In such circumstance, we are of the view that the learned District Judge has justified in dismissing I.A No.V filed in Com.OS.No.129/2020 by the plaintiffs by observing that "construction which is undertaken and is in progress in the schedule property would be subject to the result of the suit.", which in our opinion suffice to protect the interest of the plaintiffs till the disposal of the suit. Hence, we find no grounds - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29663-DB COMAP No. 28 of 2023 to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the commercial appeal is disposed off. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/K List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24