- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31771 MFA No. 4656 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4656 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: MR. NAVEEN KUMAR SONI S/O ANAND KUMAR SONI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO. 445, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK 4 RANKA APARTMENT, NEAR RICHMOND CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BRIJESH KALAPPA PALACHANDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. K. KAMALASRI W/O K N CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. C-26/82, 1ST CROSS, SHANKARAMUTT PARALLEL ROAD, OPP DHARMASHREE, SHANKARAPURAM, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 004. 2. SRI. K.N.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE K NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. C-26/82, 1ST CROSS, SHANKARAMUTT PARALLEL ROAD, OPP DHARMASHREE, SHANKARAPURAM, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 004. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31771 MFA No. 4656 of 2025 3. SRI P NANJUNDARAJU S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 42, 3RD MAIN, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 4. SRI. G.S. SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO. 44, 3RD MAIN, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 5. SRI. K.P.BABU S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 13, MYSORE MAIN ROAD, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 6. SRI K.N. RAKSHIT S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 15, MYSORE MAIN ROAD, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 7. SRI PADMANABAIAH S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 16, MYSORE MAIN ROAD, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 8. SRI DEVARAJU S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO. 17, MYSORE MAIN ROAD, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31771 MFA No. 4656 of 2025 9. SMT DHANALAKSHMAMMA D/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 18, MYSORE MAIN ROAD, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 10. SRI N NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO 47, 2ND MAIN, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 11. MR ABDUL AZIZ MAMIN S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 48, 2ND MAIN, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.RAKESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2 IN (CP 9759/25) & CR/6 IN (CP 9760/25)) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 29.04.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO. 8996/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-31, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31771 MFA No. 4656 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.8996/2024, challenging the order dated 29.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.8996/2024 on the file of XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-31)1, thereby the application filed for seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction is modified as order of status quo. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31771 MFA No. 4656 of 2025 4. The appellant/plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction contending that he is the purchaser through an auction held on 25.11.2024, purchased from Indus Ind Bank Pvt. Ltd., Bengalore. As per the sale certificate, the extent of the property is 2431 sq. ft.; the borrower who had mortgaged the property to Indus Ind Bank Pvt. Ltd., and purchased the suit property on 21.03.2019, showing the extent of property 2431 sq. ft. Therefore, to the same extent, when the Indus Ind Bank Pvt. Ltd., had put the property to auction under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act), the plaintiff has purchased the said property to the extent of 2431 sq. ft. The plaintiff has invested huge amount of around Rs.8,00,00,000/- and when the plaintiff has started construction, the defendants objected. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file suit for permanent injunction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31771 MFA No. 4656 of 2025 5. Though the Trial Court has granted an order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo, the Trial Court ought to have granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, P.A. holders, workers or anybody acting on their behalf from interfering with the construction to be carried out by the plaintiff; however, the order of status quo is not correct because the plaintiff is not able to make construction on it. Therefore, prays for grant an order of temporary injunction. 6. It is the case of the defendants that the extent of suit property is only to the extent of 1141 sq. ft., not 2431 sq ft. Therefore, the plaintiff is encroaching the defendants’ property to the extent of 2431 sq. ft., but actually the extent of suit property is only 1141 sq. ft., hence, the Trial Court is correct in ordering status-quo as the subject matter involved in the suit is what the correct extent of the suit property is, whether is it 2431 sq. ft., or 1141 sq. ft., is to be decided. Therefore, the Trial Court is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31771 MFA No. 4656 of 2025 correct in granting an order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo. Hence, pray to dismiss the appeal. 7. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 8. Upon considering the crux of the matter involved in the suit is what is the extent of the suit property is, whether is it 2431 sq. ft. or 1141 sq. ft. The plaintiff might have purchased the suit property, but as per sale certificate the extent of suit property is 2431 sq. ft., in the SARFAESI auction held on 25.11.2024 and the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff places reliance only on the document dated 21.03.2019, wherein the borrower of loan from the Bank had purchased the property to the extent of 2431 sq. ft. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo along with documents; one is registered sale deed dated 14.11.1957 and another one is dated 14.08.1970. It - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31771 MFA No. 4656 of 2025 is the submission of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that if the extent of property stated in these two sale deeds is considered, the total extent of suit property comes to 2431 sq. ft., but the plaintiff in the plaint has not pleaded this aspect. What the plaintiff has stated is only the aspect of the Indus Ind Bank Pvt. Ltd., having sold the suit property and the plaintiff having purchased it in the auction on 25.11.2024, but before that what the extent of suit property was and what the relevant documents were there is not pleaded in the plaint. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct and when this being the crux involved in the case, necessary pleadings ought to have been made. Without pleadings, if documentary evidence placed before the Trial Court for claiming equitable relief of injunction that does not amount to making out prima facie case. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in directing both the parties to maintain status-quo. 10. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that now the right of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31771 MFA No. 4656 of 2025 plaintiff is jeopardized, therefore, submitted that liberty be given to the plaintiff to make amendment in the plaint and to file a fresh application for temporary injunction after amendment. 11. Accepting the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to make amendment of the plaint and also liberty is reserved to file a fresh application for seeking an order of temporary injunction and in such an event, if an application for temporary injunction is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider the application on merits in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders. 12. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 13. All the contentions are left open. 14. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall not be influenced by whatever observations are made above and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31771 MFA No. 4656 of 2025 shall consider the application on its merits in accordance with law. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57