- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19400 MFA No. 9220 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9220 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI D. HABAKKU S/O DEVA DASS, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, FLAT NO.001, ‘A’ BLOCK, DS MAX SILVER NEST APARTMENT, BEST COUNTY-2, LAKSHMIPURA ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560097. …APPELLANT (BY SRI AMSHITH H.S., ADVOCATE (V/C)) AND: SRI PREM KUMAR SHARMA S/O RADHESHYAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, FLAT NO.107, ‘A’ BLOCK, DS MAX SILVER NEST APARTMENT, BEST COUNTY-2, LAKSHMIPURA ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560097. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANCHAN JAINANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.7102/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-7), Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19400 MFA No. 9220 of 2025 DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. 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 preferred by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 31.10.2025 on I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.7102/2023 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected I.A. No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and allowed I.A. No.2 filed by the defendant. 2. It is pertinent to note that the present appeal is directed only against the rejection of I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff. The order allowing I.A.No.2 filed by the defendant has not been challenged and has attained finality. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator/respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19400 MFA No. 9220 of 2025 Brief facts: 4. The plaintiff instituted suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property described as schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties as set out hereunder: “SCHEDULE A PROPERTY Flat bearing No.001(A block) in Ground floor, constructed over the Schedule ‘A’ property containing two bedrooms along with one car parking bearing No.1 (A Block) and the super built up area, measuring 1140 sq.ft. of the apartment known as “DS-MAX SLIVER NEST APARTMENTS”, located at Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. East by : Sy.No.27 West by : Road North by : Private property South by : Private property SCHEDULE B PROPERTY The car parking slot No.001, located at A-Block, “DS-MAX SLIVER NEST APARTMENTS”, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19400 MFA No. 9220 of 2025 Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. East by : Driveway 12’0 West by : Flat No.309 North by : Flat No.101 South by : Driveway 16’6.” 5. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction. Initially, the Trial Court granted an ex parte temporary injunction on 08.12.2023. 6. Upon appearance, defendant filed I.A.No.2 and after hearing both sides, the Trial Court rejected I.A. No.1 and allowed I.A.No.2. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has erroneously appreciated the material on record. It is submitted that finding that the plaintiff repainted the parking number is unsupported by evidence. It is further contended that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, which is totally failed to be considered by the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19400 MFA No. 9220 of 2025 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order and submits that the defendant purchased the property early in 2011, much prior to the plaintiff’s purchase. The parking was allotted under the registered sale deed dated 30.11.2011. In the absence of the defendant, the plaintiff repainted the parking number and interfered with the possession. It is submitted that the Trial Court, having considered all these aspects, has rejected the application by a well-reasoned order, which does not warrant any interference. 9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference by this Court?” 10. It is not in dispute that both the parties filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The order passed on I.A.No.2 filed by the defendant has attained finality. The Trial Court has taken into consideration that: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19400 MFA No. 9220 of 2025 i. The defendant purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 30.11.2011 much prior to the plaintiff’s purchase. ii. The parking facility was specifically allotted to the defendant under the said sale deed. iii. The defendant and his family members are in possession and enjoyment of the apartment along with the parking space since then. iv. Further, the Trial Court noted that the defendant has approached the jurisdictional police complaining of interference and that the plaintiff has failed to establish exclusive possession over the disputed parking space. 11. At the outset it is to be noted that an appeal against an order granting or refusing temporary injunction is governed by settled principles laid down in Wander Ltd., Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.1 (Wander Ltd.), wherein the Apex Court has held at paragraph No.14 as under : “14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single 1 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19400 MFA No. 9220 of 2025 Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph: (SCR 721) “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19400 MFA No. 9220 of 2025 an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.” The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.” 12. On appreciation of the material on record, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case, balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. On the contrary, the defendant has established all three ingredients. 13. This Court, upon re-appreciation, finds that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on material evidence and discretion exercised is neither arbitrary nor perverse. No case is made out for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The miscellaneous first appeal is hereby dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19400 MFA No. 9220 of 2025 ii. The order dated 31.10.2025 on I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.7102/2023 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru stands confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48