- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE DAY OF 11th FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6956 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M K NAGESH S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, GRANDSON OF MUNIRAMAIAHREDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, GOTTIGERE POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 2. SRI K ARUNA D/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, GRAND DAUGHTER OF MUNIRAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OLD, R/AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, GOTTIGERE POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRATIK PANY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAMESH REDDY R S/O LATE RAMASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OLD., R/AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 2. SRI BALA REDDY R S/O LATE RAMASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OLD., R/AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 3. SRI V BHOOMI REDDY S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 4. SRI V GAJENDRA @ RAMAREDDY S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OLD., R/AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 5. SMT. BHARATHI S D/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 6. SRI KESHAVA REDDY S S/O LATE SAMPANGIRAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 7. SRI N NAGARAJ REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1418, 16TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, KUMARA SWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560078. 8. SRI N MANJUNATHA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 9. SRI N SOMANATH REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEASR, RESIDING AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 10. SRI N ANANDA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 11. SRI N RAGHURAMA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 12. SRI N JAYARAMA REDDY S/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY , AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 13. SRI N LOKESH REDDY S/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OLD, RESIDING AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 14. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O LATE B SREENIVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 15. SRI KESHAVA REDDY S S/O LATE B SREENIVA REDDY GRANDSON OF LATE BYYA REDDY , AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUPERINTENDENT DINNE, HOMMADEVANAHALLI DAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560083. 16. SRI A RAMA REDDY S/O LATE ABBAIAH REDDY , AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560100. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 17. SRI A GOPAL REDDY SON OF LATE ABBAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.240, NEAR PRAKASH BEKARY, T M ABBAIAHA REDDY LAYOUT, DODDATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560100. 18. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. LATE A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.207, T M ABBAIAHA REDDY LAYOUT DODDATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE-560100. 19. SMT. SUDHA D/O LATE A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.207, T M ABBAIAHA REDDY LAYOUT, DODDATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE-560100. 20. SMT. SUMA D/O LATE A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OLD NO.207, T M ABBAIAHA REDY LAYOUT DODATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE-560100. 21. SRI A MUNIRAJA REDDY S/O LATE ABABIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS NO.210, CELEBRITY ROAD PARADISE ROAD, VELANKANI TECH PARK DODDATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100. 22. SMT. A LALITHAMMA D/O LATE ABBAIAH REDDY W/O. M N REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 23. SRI V M MUNINANJAREDDY @ M N REDDY S/O SRI MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, 24. SRI M MANJUNATHA S/O SRI V M MUNINANJAREDDY @ M N REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 25. SRI. M. SATISH KUMAR S/O SRI. V M MUNINANJAREDDY @M.N.REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 26. SRI. M. MADHUKAR S/O SRI. V M MUNINANJAREDDY @M.N.REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, THE APPELLANTS NOS.22 TO 26 ARE RESIDING AT DODDATHOGORU VILLAGE, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560100. 27. SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O LATE A. ASHOK REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.G1, A-BLOCK, MANIFAST WHITE ARCHANT APARTMENT, CELEBRITY ROAD, PARADISE LAYOUT, DODDATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH, ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALORE-560100. 28. SMT. ROOPA D/O LATE A. ASHOK REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.G1, A-BLOCK, MANIFEST WHITE ARCHANT APARTMENT, CELEBRITY ROAD, PARADISE LAYOUT, DODDATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 29. SMT. DEEPA D/O LATE A. ASHOK REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO.G1, A-BLOCK, MANIFEST WHITE ARCHANT APARTMENT, CELEBRITY ROAD, PARADISE LAYOUT, DODDATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100. 30. SRI. CHANDRA MOHAN S/O LATE A. ASHOK REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO.G1, A-BLOCK, MANIFEST WHITE ARCHANT APARTMENT, CELEBRITY ROAD, PARADISE LAYOUT, DODDATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100. 31. SRI. A. ANANDA REDDY S/O LATE ABBAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.112, NEAR BALAJI MEDICALS, DODDATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100. 32. SRI. A. LOKESH REDDY S/O LATE ABBAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OLD, NO.208, (A14), PATALAMMA TEMPLE, SECTOR-2, DODDATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100. 33. SRI. A. NANDEESH REDDY S/O LATE ABBAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.211, CELEBRITY ROAD, DODDATHOGURU, BANGALORE SOUTH, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 34. SRI. M. SELVARAJ S/O V S MARUTHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.33, C-1, VENKATASWAMY ROAD, METTUPALYAM, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-641 301. 35. SRI. R. SELVARAJ S/O M. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, VIDHYA NAGAR, OPP TO POLICE STATION, QUARTERS, DENKANIKOTE MAIN ROAD HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMILNADU-635109. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R34 TO R35; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 16.12.2025, NOTICE TO R1 TO R33 ARE DESPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.02.2026, THIS DAY, AN JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri. Pratik Pany, counsel for the appellants, and Sri. V.Srinivas, counsel for respondents 34 and 35, appeared in person. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 2. The captioned appeal is filed to set aside the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Court of XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore (CCH 36) on IA Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1673/2024. As this is an appeal filed under Order 43, the scope of inquiry is limited only to the impugned order arising from the interlocutory application, and does not extend to the merits of the main suit. 3. For convenience’s the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a decree directing the defendants to effect partition and put them in separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the schedule immovable property. To declare that the compromise dated 05.10.2002 obtained by defendant No.22 in O.S.No.4309/2002 is not binding on their share. To declare the gift deed dated 30.04.2003 is not binding on their share. To declare that the sale deed dated:22.12.2003 is not binding on their share, and for a declaration that the withdrawal of the suit in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 O.S.No.2395/2005 is not binding on their share and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Defendants Nos.34 and 35 filed the written statement, and notably, they adopted the contentions and averments made in the Written Statement as their objections to the Plaintiff's Temporary Injunction Application (IA) and prayed for the dismissal of the application. The Trial Court, in its order dated:22.07.2025, dismissed the application. Under these circumstances, the appellants have filed the above appeal on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Appeal. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Counsel for respondents 34 and 35 placed reliance on the following decision. SMT.UMA DEVI AND OTHERS VS SRI.ANAND KUMAR AND OTHERS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2137/ 2025. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 6. Is the Trial Court justified in rejecting the application? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 7. Before addressing this point directly, we should first briefly review the basics of a temporary injunction. An injunction is a judicial proceeding whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, any particular act. It is a remedy in the form of an order of the Court addressed to the particular person that either prohibits him from doing or continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction), or orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction). Injunctions are of two kinds: (i) Temporary and (ii) Permanent. A permanent injunction restrains a party forever from doing the specified act and can be granted only on the merits at the conclusion of the trial after hearing both parties to the suit. On the other hand, a temporary or interim injunction restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until further orders of the Court. It is regulated by the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may be granted at any stage of the suit. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 Before granting the temporary injunction, the following considerations are required to be satisfied: (i) There is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (ii) That irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated for in terms of money. (iii) That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (iv) The conduct of the plaintiff should be fair and honest. 8. Acknowledging the background, the factual data present the following picture. 9. The plaintiffs initiated the present suit in 2025, seeking a decree directing the defendants to effect partition and put them in separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the scheduled immovable property. To declare that the compromise dated:05.10.2002 obtained by defendant No.22 in O.S.No.4309/2002 is not binding on their share. To declare the gift deed dated 30.04.2003 is not binding on their share. To declare that the sale deed dated 22.12.2003 is not binding on - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 their share, and for a declaration that the withdrawal of the suit in O.S.No.2395/2005 is not binding on their share and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Defendants Nos.34 and 35 resisted the suit on several grounds, and finally, they contend that the principles of limitation bar the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff filed an Interlocutory Application (IA) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2, read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking temporary injunctions to restrain Defendant Nos.34 and 35 their agents/ servants or anybody claiming under or through them from alienating, encumbering, or creating any third-party interest in the said property pending the final disposal of the suit. Notably, defendant Nos.34 and 35 advanced a unified position, adopting the same contentions (as contended in the written statement) as their objections to the applications. The Trial Court rejected the application by taking note of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience. To be precise, the Trial Court, after evaluating the prima facie evidence and the balance of convenience, denied the applications. I concur; the refusal was both just and proper. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 The plaintiff instituted the present suit in 2025, seeking, inter-alia, the decree of a suit for certain transactions that occurred from 2002 onwards. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs move for an applications seeking an order of temporary injunction to preserve the subject matter of the suit during the pendency of the proceedings. For an injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must typically demonstrate a prima facie case, the balance of convenience in his favour, and the likelihood of suffering irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. An twenty three years delay makes it difficult to prove the urgency of "irreparable injury". The plaintiffs failed to exercise thier right for almost twenty-three years, thereby unduly prejudicing the defendants 34 and 35. The plaintiffs, by keeping quiet for twenty three years, are barred by the doctrine of laches from seeking an immediate injunction. The inordinate and unreasonable delay has caused circumstances to change significantly over time, and a party seeking urgent, immediate equitable relief (such as an injunction) must approach the Court within a reasonable time. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 Their long period of acquiescence invalidates their current claim for immediate relief. It is a well-settled principle of law that interim relief can always be granted in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or any other proceeding. Therefore, a Court undoubtedly possesses the power to grant interim relief during the pendency of the suit. Temporary injunctions are thus injunctions issued during the pendency of proceedings. The Trial Court rightly found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, as the material on record did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for immediate intervention, nor was the balance of convenience established in the plaintiff's favour. By failing to act for over two decades, the applicants have waived their right to claim urgency, as 'irreparable' loss cannot be pleaded after such prolonged acquiescence. The significant gaps of twenty-three years make it hard to argue that the situation is urgent or that the loss is truly 'irreparable' at this stage. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 It is noted that the issue of limitation is a substantial question requiring full consideration and cannot be conclusively decided at the interlocutory stage. Nevertheless, the Court's decision to deny the injunction was well-founded, as the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the foundational requirements for temporary relief, particularly by failing to make out a prima facie case that warranted such an equitable intervention. The power to grant or refuse a temporary injunction rests on the sound exercise of discretion by the Court, which must be based on established principles, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is a matter of judicial discretion, and the Trial Court has exercised this discretion judiciously and on sound legal principles, establishing a strong prima facie case and balancing the conveniences; therefore, the order cannot be set aside as it's not arbitrary or capricious. The Trial Court arrived at a just conclusion, which warrants no interference from this Court. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8282 MFA No. 6956 of 2025 10. Although the parties have argued the merits at length, this Court will confine itself to testing the legality and propriety of the impugned interlocutory order, as noted earlier. 11. Counsel for respondents 34 and 35 placed reliance on the decision, but I do not think the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the decision referred to supra. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Because of the dismissal of the appeal, all pending interlocutory applications are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1