- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36579 MFA No. 3595 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3595 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: MAYA HOTELS PVT LTD 52/1, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU- 560 001, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, (THIRTHA KUMARA SWAMY) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.C. KUMARSWAMY A/W SRI. S. VENKATESHWARAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RECOVERY OFFICER-2 DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, 4TH FLOOR, BSNL BUILDINGS, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. CHIEF MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK, NO.26, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 027. 3. SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR 3RD FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. V.R.VINAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36579 MFA No. 3595 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO. 1543/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-18), REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC WITH COST OF RS. 10,000/-. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant/plaintiff has preferred the present appeal challenging the order passed on I.A.No.1 under order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1543/2024 dated 28.04.2025 by the Court of the XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff has filed suit against the respondents/defendants with prayer as extracted below: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36579 MFA No. 3595 of 2025 "Permanent injunction to cancel the Registration of instruments under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 "DOCUMENT NO.3 (Registration of the Schedule Property of Plaintiff by defendant No.2) as the instrument is void and voidable and the Plaintiff apprehend that the instrument (document No.3) if left outstanding may cause serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable and the court has its discretion so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled simultaneously and direct the Defendant No.3 to declare the Registration of Schedule Property of Document No.3 as NULL & VOID as the defendants have played fraud with malicious intention by adopting illegal & unlawful methods and hence it is invalid and unlawful not binding on Plaintiff as per the Laws of the Land and hence the declaration is sought and the cancellation of instrument (document No.3) to meet the end of Justice as the same is contrary to the Rights of the Plaintiff under Article 300A and 14 & 21 of the Constitution." 3. When this being the prayer, an application filed by the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction is dismissed on the reasons that the plaintiff is borrower of loan from the second defendant and has failed to discharge the said debt and thus, the borrower-bank has initiated the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36579 MFA No. 3595 of 2025 recovery proceedings and led to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal and before this Court and the trial Court has observed that when sale proclamation is issued and expressing doubt how the suit is maintainable and further observed that the suit filed is only to protract the proceedings and to delay the handing over of physical possession of the property in question to defendant No.2. Therefore, on all these reasons, the trial Court has dismissed the application. 4. Now this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits involved in the case and whether the reasons assigned by the trial Court are valid reasons or not, but this Court is concerned with the scheme of claiming suit with the prayer made in the plaint. In the suit, the plaintiff has made the above prayer with pleading that the bank has played fraud by manipulating the documents, etc. But the question is when the plaintiff had invoked Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 for seeking cancellation of the registered instrument as null and void. The prayer - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36579 MFA No. 3595 of 2025 ought to have been for seeking declaration to cancel the registered instrument but the prayer is only for permanent injunction. Therefore, the prayer in the suit for permanent injunction invoking Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prima facie is not maintainable. When it is pleaded in the plaint that the instrument is by playing fraud, manipulation, fabrication, etc., it cannot be decided in suit for permanent injunction. Therefore, the suit ought to have been for comprehensive relief of declaration. Therefore, the pleading made in the plaint and prayer sought for are disproportionate to each other. Therefore, with this prayer, if the suit is continued, it is a sheer waste of time since in a suit for permanent injunction, the parameters are narrow in scope. 5. Therefore, by the very nature of the relief sought for in the suit, it is not maintainable, which is found to be having prima facie, and it is also one of the circumstances of whether it is a fit case to exercise discretionary relief of grant of order of temporary - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36579 MFA No. 3595 of 2025 injunction. When this being the one of the defects then the plaintiff / appellant is not entitled for equitable relief of injunction. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant further submitted that liberty may be reserved to make suitable amendment in the plaint or to file comprehensive suit for declaration or for approaching appropriate forum as per law. 7. Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is reserved to the appellant/plaintiff to make suitable amendment in the plaint or to file comprehensive suit for declaration or for any relief for approaching any appropriate forum / authority as per law. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff submitted that the interim order granted by this Court may be continued. The prayer made by the counsel for the appellant is declined for the reason that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36579 MFA No. 3595 of 2025 considering the prayer made in the suit prima facie case is not made out to entertain the suit according to the said relief sought for. Also, this Court does not see any perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. 9. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed reserving liberty as discussed above. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA