- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6378 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI MUDDANNA S/O LATE VEERAKEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT SY. NOS.66, 67, (OLD SY.NOS.65, 70 & 72), BHEEMANAKUPPE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560060. …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRAMOD N. KATHAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAVISHANKAR R.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY REVENUE SECRETARY NO.1, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LAND RECORDS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR SURVEY SETTLEMENTS, BENGALURU. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BENGALURU SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU RURAL. OFFICES 2 TO 4 IS AT KANDAYA BHAVAN, NO.9, DISTRICT OFFICE ROAD, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 5. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION, NADA PRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 020. 6. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NADA PRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT, B.D.A., KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5; SRI AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-6) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.1124/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ‘DICTATION OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the order dated 05.07.2025 in OS No. 1124/2019 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, (‘the Trial Court’ for short) whereby I.A No. 5 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction was rejected. Brief Facts 2. The appellant-plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of the land bearing Sy. No. 70 measuring 5 acres 21 guntas, Sy. No. 65 measuring 3 acres, Sy. No. 66 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas, Sy. No. 72 measuring 1 acre, in all 11 acres, 34 guntas, situated at Bheemanakuppe Village, Kengeri, Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said lands were originally granted under the provisions of Mysore Land (Personal and Miscellaneous) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and thereafter conveyed under a registered sale deed, with revenue entry standing in the name of the appellant. It is the case of the plaintiff that certain errors in the survey and classification of the lands were made by the revenue authorities, which came to be challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and the order passed by the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner were set aside, leaving the parties to work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court. 3. In this background, the appellant/plaintiff instituted O.S.No.1124/2019 seeking declaration of title and consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents 5 and 6 initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of the schedule properties by issuing preliminary and final notifications. Though the appellant had earlier challenged the said acquisition proceedings in writ petition and initially succeeded, the Division Bench in Writ Appeal ultimately upheld the acquisition, subject to certain directions permitting - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 landowners to seek exclusion of their lands from the acquisition. 4. It is stated that pursuant to the said liberty, the plaintiff submitted representation seeking exclusion of the schedule properties, which are yet to be considered. It is further stated that despite the subsisting directions of this Court, the respondents have interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties, including attempts to remove the standing trees and crops. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 5 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction against the respondents, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court leading to the present appeal. 5. Sri Pramod N Kathavi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court suffers from serious infirmities and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that defendant Nos. 5 and 6 (BDA and LAO) have not filed any written statement in the suit nor objections to I.A No. 5 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 and in the absence of their pleadings, the Trial Court ought not to have accepted their contentions. It is submitted that the appellant had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment of the plaint, which came to be allowed and the amended plaint incorporates all relevant facts including earlier proceedings. Hence, the findings of suppression of material facts by the Trial Court, is erroneous. 5.1. The application seeking vacation of interim order is not maintainable without filing a written statement, and the Trial Court has failed to appreciate this settled position of law. 5.2. The application for injunction was filed in furtherance of the directions issued by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal, wherein BDA was restrained from disturbing possession till consideration of representations. 5.3. The rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC earlier establishes that the suit is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 maintainable, and therefore, the Trial Court could not have indirectly held otherwise while considering I.A No. 5. 5.4. The appellant is in settled possession and interference by BDA is contrary to the orders passed in writ proceedings, and thereby making out a clear prima facie case. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 contend that, (i) the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the acquisition proceedings, having been upheld by the Division Bench, and reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, BDA and Another vs Brijesh Reddy and Another1. (ii) The appellant is attempting to re-agitate issues already concluded in earlier writ proceedings. (iii) The cause of action pleaded is inconsistent, and the present application is an afterthought. 1 (2013) 3 SCC 66 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 (iv) It is further contended that in earlier Writ Petition 33267/2011, only certain portions of the land were considered and present schedule properties were not fully covered, thereby disentitling the appellant to any relief. Hence, no prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss is made out. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference by this Court? 8. Upon considering the submission and perusal of the material, the following aspects emerge : (i) It is not in dispute that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have not filed written statement nor objections to the application. The Trial Court, however, has proceeded to accept - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 their contentions and reject the application. Such an approach is contrary to the settled principles, as interim relief has to be considered on the basis of the pleadings and material on record. (ii) The record discloses that the appellant had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed, and the relevant facts relating to writ proceedings and writ appeal were brought on record. Therefore, the finding that the appellant has suppressed material facts is factually incorrect and unsustainable. 9. The Division Bench, while upholding the acquisition has issued certain directions, permitting the landowners to seek the exclusion and has restrained interference with possession till such consideration. The operative portion of the order is culled out for ready reference : - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 “69. (c) (iv) Till the aforesaid exercise directed to be undertaken by the BDA and the applications filed by the writ petitioners, either for allotment of sites or for dropping of the lands from acquisition are considered, their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing construction shall not be demolished.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has filed representation as per the directions issued by the Division Bench and thus the said order stated supra enures to the benefit of the appellant. The Trial Court has failed to give weight to this binding direction. 11. The application under Order VII Rule 11 having been rejected, the maintainability of the suit stands upheld at this stage. The Trial Court could not have indirectly reopened the issue while deciding the injunction application. 12. The appellant has placed material to show possession over the suit schedule property. Interference by the respondents, particularly in light of the Division - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 Bench directions, establishes a prima facie case, balance of convenience also lies in their favour, in preserving the property and possession till adjudication. The impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption, ignores material aspect and does not properly apply the settled test under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 13. Another aspect which has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court is that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have admittedly not filed their written statement in the suit, hence the Trial Court committed an error in accepting the contentions urged on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the absence of pleadings controverting the averments made in the plaint and affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.5. In such circumstances, in the absence of there being any pleadings by way of written statement or objections, the Trial Court ought to have been slow in recording conclusive findings against the appellant. 14. Though it is true that mere non-filing of written statement itself would not automatically entitle the plaintiff - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 to an order of injunction, nevertheless, the Court while considering an interlocutory application is required to examine the pleadings and rival claims as borne out of from the record. In the present case, the impugned order discloses that the Trial Court virtually accepted the defence of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 without there being any foundational pleadings supporting such defence, which renders the impugned order unsustainable. The Trial Court instead of confining itself to a limited consideration under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, has virtually adjudicated disputed questions without proper pleadings from respondents 5 and 6, warranting interference by this Court. 15. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. However, considering the suit is pending and the rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated, it would be appropriate to protect the subject matter. Accordingly, this Court pass the following : - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in O.S. No. 1124/2019 on I.A.No. 5 is set aside. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents 5 and 6 to file written statement as well as appropriate interlocutory application in support of their claim. (iv) Upon respondents 5 and 6 filing such pleadings or interlocutory application, the Trial Court shall consider and dispose of I.A.No.5 after affording opportunity to both parties in accordance with law. (v) Till consideration and disposal of I.A.No.5 by the Trial Court, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24447 MFA No. 6378 of 2025 nature, possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. (vi) The Trial Court shall re-consider and dispose of I.A.No.5 independently uninfluenced by any observations made herein. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29