- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53757 MFA No. 1944 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1944 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.MAHABALA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHIKKI POOJARTHI, RESIDING AT NO.2-86, MATHRU KRIPA HOUSE, NINJOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK. 2. MR.CHANDRAKANTH. M KOTIAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O.MAHABALA KOTIAN, RESIDING AT SASITHOTA, KODAVOOR VILLAGE, TOTTAM POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT 3. DEVAKI POOJARTHI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 4. MAMATHA BALESH POOJARY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 5. SAVITHA SUDHAKARA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 6. BABITHA DASHARTH POOJARY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53757 MFA No. 1944 of 2025 APPELLANT NO.3 IS THE WIFE AND APPELLANT Nos.4 TO 6 ARE CHILDREN OF APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE R/A NO.2-86 MATHRU KIRPA HOUSE, NINJOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. AKSHATHA SHETTY K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PREMA SANJIVA PUJARI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, D/O. LATE CHIKKI POOJARTHI, R/A ROOM NO.2, PIPALI GALI, HINDUSTAN NAKA CHARKOP, KANDIVALI WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA - 400 067. 2. YASHODA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS D/O.LATE CHIKKI POOJARTHI RESIDING AT SANNIDHI, MALLAR VILLAGE, KOMBAGUDDE, KAUP POST, KAUP TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 106. 3. MR. RAMESH POOJARY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE HIKKI POOJARTHI, R/A ROOM NO.2, PIPALI GALI, HINDUSTAN NAKA CHARKOP, KANDIVALI WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA – 400 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN OS.NO. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53757 MFA No. 1944 of 2025 41/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 3-A AND 4 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.3 to 7 questioning the order dated 28.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.IV filed under Order XXXIX Rules 3-A and 4 R/W Section 151 of CPC, thereby, the application filed seeking the trial Court to vacate the interim order granted to the respondents is rejected. 2. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession. There is dispute regarding relationship between the parties and nature of properties is concerned as pleaded in the suit. It is stated that the plaintiffs are also co-owners along with the defendants and hence, they have right in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, with the apprehension that, if the defendants alienate the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53757 MFA No. 1944 of 2025 property, then it would defeat the right and interest of the plaintiffs, therefore, filed the application for temporary injunction, which is allowed by the trial Court and in turn, the trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction. 3. Upon considering the averments made in the pleadings, nature of the properties and dispute between the parties, there is no error found in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The only order of temporary injunction granted is restraining defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.3 to 7 from alienating the suit schedule properties. Hence, there is no need to make interference in the order passed by the trial Court. 4. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that there is threat to the defendants on the possession by the plaintiffs. If that be so, if there is threat of dispossession, then the defendants are at liberty to file an appropriate application as per law - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53757 MFA No. 1944 of 2025 and in such an event, the trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35