- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19163 MFA No. 1533 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1533 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI P.S. SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O LATE P.V. SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.362, 11TH MAIN, BANK COLONY, SRINIVASANAGAR, BENGALURU-560050. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VANITHA .R W/O RAMESH .P AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. SRI RAMESH .P S/O LATE NARAYANAIAH .P AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT NO.F-85, SRI KRISHNA LOBAN WORKS, SUSHEELA ROAD, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.6028/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-32), ALLOWING THE Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19163 MFA No. 1533 of 2026 I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., 1908. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 defendant assailing the order dated 24.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.I in O.S. No.6028/2024 on the file of the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru City (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction has been allowed. Brief facts: 2. The plaintiffs instituted suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.I - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19163 MFA No. 1533 of 2026 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking temporary injunction. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that the Trial Court has failed to consider the absence of a prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury were not established by the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the impugned order suffers from perversity, arbitrariness and contrary to the settled principles governing injunction. It is contended that the identity on existence of the suit property itself is seriously disputed, which ought not to have been ignored by the Trial Court. 5. This Court has carefully considered the submission and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19163 MFA No. 1533 of 2026 “Whether the impugned order granting temporary injunction suffers from perversity, illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference?” 6. The plaintiffs have produced registered sale deed and supporting documents, including katha, building licence and possession related records, indicating prima facie possession as on the date of the suit. The Trial Court has taken note that the dispute between the parties relates to identity and boundaries of the property, which requires adjudication at trial and cannot be conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage. The defendant’s contention regarding fraud, manipulation and lack of title involves disputed questions of fact which require full fledged evidence. 7. The Trial Court confined itself to limited enquiry at the interim stage, namely who was in possession as on the date of the suit. It is also relevant to note that plaintiffs’ vendor had earlier obtained a decree of permanent injunction in O.S. No.2158/2017 on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19163 MFA No. 1533 of 2026 07.02.2020, restraining the present defendant from interfering with the possession. The said decree lends support to the plaintiffs’ case of possession. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of material on record, has held that: i. The plaintiffs have established a prima facie case; ii. Balance of convenience lies in their favour. iii. Irreparable injury would be caused, if injunction is not granted. 8. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality or arbitrariness in the approach adopted by the Trial Court warranting interference. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The miscellaneous first appeal is dismissed. ii. The order dated 24.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.I in O.S. No.6028/2024 on the file of the XX Additional - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19163 MFA No. 1533 of 2026 City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru City stands confirmed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45