- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13839 MFA No. 1553 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1553 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: MRS. ASHA ARUN PANTH W/O ARUN CHINTOPANTH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.521, 13TH A MAIN, 22ND CROSS, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560070. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SRIRANGA S., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. VISHWANATH VAIDYANATHAN S/O MR. VAIDYANATHAN, MAJOR R/AT NO.521/A, 13TH MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560070. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.1229/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE C/C XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-9), REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., 1908. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13839 MFA No. 1553 of 2026 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the plaintiff calling in question the order dated 28.01.2026 passed on IA No. 1 in O.S. No.1229/2025 by the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-9) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to the use of the plaintiff's property by blocking the entrance of the property bearing No.521, 13th A Main, 22nd Cross, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru (described as a ‘scheduled property’), has been rejected. Brief facts: 2. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and resident of the scheduled property. The defendant is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13839 MFA No. 1553 of 2026 stated to be the owner of the adjacent properties bearing Nos.520 and 521/A. According to the plaintiff, the entrance gate of the defendant's property is situated adjacent to the compound wall of the plaintiff’s property and the vehicles visiting the defendants premises are parked in front of the entrance gate of the plaintiff’s property, thereby obstructing the plaintiff’s ingress and egress to her premises. It is further stated that despite repeated requests and issuance of legal notice calling upon the defendant to shift the entrance gate of his property, no steps were taken by the defendant. In these circumstances, the plaintiff instituted O.S. No.1229/2025 seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to shift the entrance gate of his property and also for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s property. 3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an order of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13839 MFA No. 1553 of 2026 temporary injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to the use of the plaintiff’s property during the pendency of the suit. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, by order dated 28.01.2026, rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri Sriranga .S appearing for the plaintiff/appellant contends that the entrance gate of the defendant’s property is situated adjacent to the compound wall of the plaintiff’s property and vehicles visiting the defendant’s premises are parked in front of the entrance gate of the plaintiff’s property, thereby obstructing the plaintiff’s ingress and egress to her premises. It is contended that the photographs and other material produced before the Trial Court clearly demonstrate the obstruction caused to the plaintiff in use of her property. However, the Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the material on record and has erroneously held that the plaintiff has not established a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13839 MFA No. 1553 of 2026 prima facie case. Learned senior counsel submits that the Trial Court has wrongly concluded that the plaintiff had acquiesced to the situation and submits that the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is unsustainable in law and the plaintiff has made out a clear prima facie case, a balance of convenience in her favour, and she would suffer irreparable injury, if the temporary injunction is not granted. 5. Per contra, Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel for the defendant/respondent, supports the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and submits that the defendant is the absolute owner of the properties bearing Nos.520 and 521/A and the entrance gate of the said property has been in existence for several years. It is submitted that the plaintiff has no right to seek a mandatory direction against the defendant with respect to the entrance gate of the defendant's property. It is further contended that the plaintiff has constructed her building after the construction of the defendant's property and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13839 MFA No. 1553 of 2026 therefore, cannot now complain about the existence of the entrance gate. It is submitted that the Trial Court, after having found that the plaintiff had not established any prima facie case nor shown the balance of convenience in her favour, had rightly refused the injunction and that the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting temporary injunction does not warrant any interference. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and Rule 2 seeking temporary injunction?” 8. The suit instituted by the plaintiff is one seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to shift the entrance gate of his property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to the use of the plaintiff’s property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.1 under Order - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13839 MFA No. 1553 of 2026 XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to the use of the plaintiff's property during the pendency of the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that the entrance gate of the defendant’s property is situated adjacent to the compound wall of the plaintiff’s property and the vehicles visiting the defendant’s premises are parked in front of the plaintiff’s gate, thereby obstructing ingress and egress to the plaintiff’s property. 9. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the entrance gate to his property has been in existence for several years and that the plaintiff has constructed her building subsequent to the construction of defendant's property. It is contended that the plaintiff had no legal right to seek a direction against the defendant in respect of the entrance gate of the defendant's property. 10. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings and material on record, has recorded a finding that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13839 MFA No. 1553 of 2026 plaintiff has failed to establish the essential requirements for grant of temporary injunction. The Trial Court has observed that the grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the vehicles parked in front of the gate of her property and the material produced by the plaintiff does not clearly establish that there is obstruction preventing access to the property. The Trial Court also observed that the plaintiff has not placed any material to demonstrate that the alleged obstruction is of such a nature as to warrant grant of temporary injunction at an interlocutory stage and therefore, held that the plaintiff has not established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in her favour. 11. On careful consideration of the material placed on record, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. At this interlocutory stage, the Court is only required to examine whether the plaintiff has established the three ingredients necessary for grant of temporary injunction. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13839 MFA No. 1553 of 2026 The Trial Court has examined the material placed before it and has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish the same. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for temporary injunction does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting any interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51