- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4816 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. M. RAMANATH SHENOY S/O LATE M. GOVIND RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT 967, J.L.B ROAD LAXMIPURAM MYSORE-570 004 2. MR. M. JAGANNATH SHENOI S/O LATE M. GOVIND RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT 967, J.L.B ROAD LAXMIPURAM MYSORE-570 004 3. MR. M. GOPINATH SHENOY S/O LATE M. GOVIND RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT 960/4, DIWAN'S ROAD 3RD MAIN, LAXMIPURAM MYSORE-570 004 4. M/S. MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VINOBA ROAD, MYSORE-570005 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. KARAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 AND: 1. MRS. PADMINI S. KAMATH W/O MR. SHASHIDHAR KAMATH N AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.2-1-30/1 GANESH KRIPA, CHILIMBI, URWA MANGALORE-575 006 2. MRS. NALINI V. BHAT W/O LATE MR. D. VITTAL BHAT AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT GOVIND BHARATHI NAGAR, BEHIND KSRTC BEJAI, MANGALORE-575 004 3. HOTEL THIMMAPPA GANESH BAGH MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS COMPOUND, LALBAGH MANGALURU -575 003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. AJAY PRABHU M, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 104 R/W ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN OS.NO. 88/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND CJM, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Misc. First appeal is filed Under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the appellants assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned I Addl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru in OS No.88/2025. 2. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the respondent - plaintiff granting interim injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 i.e. the appellants herein, their representatives, successors, legal heirs, assignees and anybody claiming through or under them by way of temporary injunction from alienating, transferring, mortgaging or in any way encumbering. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the broad and unqualified nature of the injunction, which, in their submission, is devoid of legal foundation and ignores the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 passage of time, the law governing dissolved partnerships and the settled principles of interim relief. 4. The genesis of the dispute arose through a dissolution of partnership firm namely 'Mangaluru Ganesh Beedi Works' originally constituted several decades ago and in which late M.Govind Rao, the father of the respondent is one of the partners. The said firm was dissolved in the year 1987. Following the dissolution, Company Case No.1/88 was initiated before this Court seeking winding up of firm and disposal of its assets. 5. Pursuant to the judicial orders passed in those proceedings, the assets of the firm were brought under the control of this Court and were sold in public auction conducted under the Court supervision. The sale was confirmed through an order dated 22.12.1984. Appellant nos. 2 and 3, along with one Mr.Vishwanath Rao purchased the assets through this process. The sale was transparent, publicly notified and legally sanctioned. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 Importantly, no objection was raised by any party including the legal heirs of the erstwhile partners either at the time of dissolution or during the sale. Several years thereafter, in 2002, a new partnership firm bearing the same name 'Mangaluru Ganesh Beedi Works' was constituted with a fresh set of partners and was duly registered under the relevant statutes. This new firm is distinct entity unrelated to the dissolved firm except for the similarity in nomenclature. Over the years, this new firm has developed into large scale industrial enterprise employing more than 50,000 workers and engaged in commercial activities across multiple states. 6. The respondent, being the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit is asserting that, she is a daughter of late Sri M.Govinda Rao filed suit in O.S No. 88/2025 seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the plaint properties. Her principle contention is that, the present firm continues to use the assets and Goodwill of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 original firm and therefore, she is entitled to a share in the schedule property as legal heir. 7. Along with the suit, the respondent-plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 seeking interim relief by way of injunction against the appellants. The trial Court, without thorough examination of the complex legal and factual aspects, granted a blanket injunction restraining the appellants from dealing with the scheduled properties. 8. The appellants strongly opposed the interim relief by contending that, respondent has not made out any prima facie case. They placed reliance on the Court approved sale deed dated 22.12.1994 and the documentation relating to formation and registration of a new firm in the year 2002. The appellants submit that the respondent's claims are vague, belated and devoid of legal merit. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants Sri Uday Holla further submitted that, suit itself is hopelessly - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 barred by limitation having filed over four decades after dissolution of firm and three decades after sale of assets. 9. The learned Senior counsel pointed out that respondent has not pleaded that the schedule properties were part of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). In the absence of the such a plea, the claiming of undivided coparcenery right does not arise. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that, injunction order has caused grave prejudice as it hampers functioning of flourishing commercial entity, jeopardize employment of thousands of workers and disrupts contractual and business obligations. 10. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R.Ravishankar for the respondent submits that, the appellants are very much concerned with 50,000 workers and no concern to their own sister. As the plaintiff is the sister of appellants, she is entitled for a share in the properties under the provisions of HS Act. As there is no division of properties, these appellants being the brothers - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 have completely isolated the plaintiff and therefore, she has filed a suit for partition. His submission is that, as the plaintiff is the sister of the defendants and a Class-I heir of Govind Rao is entitled to a share in the property. According to his submission, the learned trial Court is right in granting the interim order and he submits to dismiss the appeal as the impugned order does not warrant interference. 11. In view of rival submissions of both side, this Court is called upon to examine, whether the trial Court has properly has exercised its discretion while granting the interim injunction. It is settled law that grant of interim injunction must satisfy three cumulative tests - existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood irreparable injury - as consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court most recently in Ramakant Ambala Choksi vs. Harsih Ambalal Choksi and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3538. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 12. In the present case, no prima facie case has been made out by the respondent. The appellants have placed on record unimpeached title documents having lawful purchase of the properties in the year 1994 in a court - supervisory auction. The respondent has not challenged those proceedings nor has she placed on record any document to establish her right, title or interest in the properties. Her assertions rest solely on her lineage and an assumption that the use of the old firm's name entitled her to a share in the assets of new entity. This is neither legally tenable nor factually supported. 13. Moreover there is no pleading whatsoever, that the properties in question formed part of Hindu undivided family (HUF). Absence of foundational plea, the suit for partition must fail at the threshold. Partition cannot be claimed in properties that are not coparcenaery or jointly owned. The inordinate and unexplained delay of 40 years in asserting rights over the properties is fatal to the respondents claim. It is settled that, "delay and latches - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 disentitles a party from equitable relief. Delay reflect inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basis norms". A person who sleeps over their right cannot be heard to complain a decades later especially where commercial interests and third party rights are involved. 14. The balance of convenience is overwhelmingly in favour of appellants. Appellant no.4 is a large commercial undertaking with 50,000 of workers and wide ranging contractual obligations. An injunction halting alienation or business operations causes disproportionate hardship to the appellants and those dependent on them. On the other hand, respondent's claim if ultimately found valid, is one that can be adequately compensated by monetary relief. Injunctive relief is not warranted where the alleged harm is irreparable in nature. As held in Ramakanth case Courts must refrain from granting interity relief that has the effect of prejudging the suit or inflicting irreversible damage on the defendants. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 15. The respondents reliance on the continued use of name "Mangalore Ganesh Beedi works' is misconceived. It is clarified in Smt.Rathnamma vs. B.A.Srinivasa Gupta and Others reported in 1998 SCC online Kar. 662 that "mere identity of a trade name does not confer proprietary rights' unless there is legal continuity or succession". In this case, at this stage no such continuity is established as new firm is independently registered, partnership distinct in law and fact. While it is true that, appellate courts must be circumspect in interfering with discretionary interity orders. In the present case, the trial Court has failed to appreciate foundational legal aspects and granted a sweeping injunction without due scrutiny. Such an order calls for reversal. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court finds that, the order of the trial Court dated 16.6.2025 is unsustainable in law and on facts. the respondent has neither made out a prima facie case nor demonstrated balance of convenience or irreparable harm. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27574 MFA No. 4816 of 2025 17. Accordingly the appeal deserves to be allowed. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) This appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 16.6.2025 passed by the learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru in OS No.88/2025 is set aside. (iii) Consequentially, interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC by the respondent-plaintiff is dismissed. (iv) It is clarified, that all the observations made in the judgment are only for the purpose of deciding this appeal and shall not, in any manner influence final adjudication in the suit before the trial Court. Under the circumstances no orders to costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55