- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120 MFA No. 200184 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200184 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. TANUSHREE W/O SHARANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHANTNALLI, TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 115. 2. SMT. HANAMAVVA W/O SHARANAPPA KADAKAL, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHANTNALLI, TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 115. 3. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O HONNAPPA PATIL, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHANTNALLI, TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 115. 4. SMT. BASAMMA W/O HANAMANTRAYA PATIL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHANTNALLI, TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 115. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120 MFA No. 200184 of 2025 5. SMT. BHIMAVVA W/O MALLIKARJUN DODAMANI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHANTNALLI, TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 115. 6. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O SAHEBGOUDA BIRADAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHANTNALLI, TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 115. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BASAMMA W/O SHARANAPPA SAJJAN, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE, R/O: ALAGUR, TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 118. 2. BUSHETTY @ BASAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ALAGUR, TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 118. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. 4. THE SUB-REGISTER, SINDAGI TALUKA, SINDAGI – 586 128. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120 MFA No. 200184 of 2025 5. THE TAHASILDAR, DEVAR HIPPARAGI, TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI – 586 115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NARENDRA M. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI MAQBOOL AHMED, A.G.A. FOR R3 TO R4; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43(1)(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SINDAGI IN O.S.NO.8/2022 ON IA NO.11 AND TO DISMISS THE IA NO.11 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi in O.S.no.8/2022 on IA no.XI, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, learned counsel for appellants submitted that appeal was by defendants no.2 to 7 in suit filed by respondent no.1, for partition and separate possession of his half share in suit property etc. It was submitted plaintiff had earlier filed I.A.no.I under Order 39 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120 MFA No. 200184 of 2025 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction. On opposition, said application was rejected by Trial Court by order dated 08.12.2022. Despite rejection of earlier application, I.A.no.XI was filed under very same provision, once again for temporary injunction. It was submitted, application would not be maintainable. Despite said contention having being urged, Trial Court passed impugned order. It was further submitted grounds for opposing application by defendants would be same as urged against I.A.no.I. On said ground also impugned order would call for interference. It was lastly submitted appellant was purchaser of suit property after rejection of earlier application for temporary injunction and was a bonafide purchaser. Therefore, passing of order of temporary injunction against appellant was contrary to law. On said grounds sought for allowing of appeal. 3. Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.3 to 5 opposed appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order and material placed along with memorandum of appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120 MFA No. 200184 of 2025 5. This appeal is against discretionary order passed by Trial Court under provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd.Mehtab Khan and others vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others1 has held scope for interference against discretionary order passed by Trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure would be extremely limited and even if view taken by Trial Court were one of possible views, there could be no interference unless order suffered from perversity. First ground urged is application is filed under same provision. Said such contention would be too overbroad to hold water. Merely on ground that application is filed under same provision would not be a bar for Trial Court to entertain application if relief sought is different. Prayer sought in IA no.I was for temporary injunction against alienation, changing of mutation entries etc., whereas in present, plaintiff is seeking an order of temporary injunction against interference with possession. 1 (2013) 9 SCC 221 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120 MFA No. 200184 of 2025 6. Perusal of order dated 08.12.2022, rejecting I.A.no.I would not reveal any finding about plaintiff not being in possession. In affidavit filed in support of present application (IA No.XI), it is stated that on filing of suit on 20.01.2022, I.A.no.I was filed as plaintiff was apprehending alienation of suit property by defendant no.1, Court granting ex-parte order of temporary injunction on 27.01.2022 but later dismissed application on 08.12.2022. It is further stated thereafter defendant no.1 had alienated suit schedule property in favour of defendants no.2 to 7. Therefore, plaintiff had filed application for impleading them, same was allowed and they were impleaded. And as said defendants were trying to take advantage of sale deed and interfering with possession, cause of action for present application had accrued and application was filed. Though contention about application being barred by principle of constructive res-judicata were urged, Trial Court under impugned order duly considered said contention and rejected it. Rejection of application for temporary injunction against non alienation would not be a bar for filing application for temporary injunction for protection of plaintiff’s possession. Similarity of objections of defendants against both applications - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120 MFA No. 200184 of 2025 would not be sufficient justification for interference. No case of perversity pointed out. Trial Court has on reference to rival pleadings and contentions, framed proper points for consideration and passed impugned order by assigning detailed reasons. No case for interference made out. 7. Appeal is dismissed, but with observation that parties may request Trial Court for expeditious conclusion of suit and if such request is made, Trial Court to expedite disposal of suit. It is clarified that observations made by Trial Court in impugned order as well as this Court in present order would not bind Trial Court at time of passing final judgment. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 Ct :Vk