- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 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.3604 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. RUKMINI S/O LATE PATTLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.324, K.H.B.COLONY, PATTALAMMA TEMPLE, VADDARAPALYA, (SHIVANAPALYA), KENGERI, BANGALORE-560060. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MAYANNA GOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SRINIVAS S/O SRI DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. SMT. MANJULA W/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.342/1, KHB COLONY, PATTALAMMA TEMPLE, VADDARAPALYA (SHIVANAPALYA), KENGERI, BANGALORE-560060. 3. SRI VENKATARAMU S/O LATE DODDAPATTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025 4. SRI NARENDRA @ RAJA S/O VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 5. SRI RAVI S/O VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 6. SRI NAGARAJA S/O SRI DODDAPUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 7. SRI MANJUNATH S/O SRI NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.342, KHB COLONY, PATTALAMMA TEMPLE, VADDARAPALYA (SHIVANAPALYA), KENGERI, BANGALORE-5600060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SOMASHEKARA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.2726/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH.NO.23, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.2 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This miscellaneous first appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 24.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S. No.2726/2024 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-23), Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court rejected I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and allowed I.A. No.3 filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, consequently vacated the ad interim order of temporary injunction. 2. Heard Sri Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Somashekara K.M., learned counsel for the respondents. Brief facts: 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit property bearing Survey No.37/1, new BBMP Katha No.1557/45, measuring North - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025 to South 30 feet and East to West 17 feet, in total 510 square feet with the boundaries as enumerated below: “SCHEDULE PROEPRTY Present Schedule-C/ old Schedule-B Item No:02 The piece and parcel of the own Site property bearing Old Sy.no:37/1, new BBMP Khatha No.1557/45, measuring North to South 30 feets and East to West 17 feets, total 510 Sq.feets, situated at Bengaluru south Taluk, Kengeri Hobli, Valagerahalli Dhakale, Vaddarapalya Village (Shivanapalya), Bangalore-560061. Bounded on the East by : Nagaraj and Manjunath Allotted Item No:01, property, West by : 5 feets Passage, North by : ‘B’ Scheduled Property South by : ‘C’ Scheduled Property. And intends to constructed illegally encroached 5 feets passage by, defendant No:01 and 02, over the above site.” 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that a 5 feet passage exists on the western side, which is used for ingress and egress. Alleging that the defendants have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025 encroached upon the said passage and commenced construction, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 seeking a temporary injunction. Initially, an ex-parte injunction was granted. Upon appearance, the defendants filed I.A.No.3 seeking vacation of the same, which came to be allowed by the Trial Court. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the passage forms part of the plaintiff’s property and is essential for access. The construction undertaken by the defendants is by encroaching upon the said passage. It is contended that the Trial Court has erred in holding that there is no prima facie case, without properly considering the material on record. It is submitted that the finding regarding the identity of the property is erroneous and contrary to the records. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the construction - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025 undertaken is on a different property situated in Sy. No.36/1 and has no nexus to the plaintiff’s property. It is submitted that there is no passage as claimed by the plaintiff and that the dispute relates to the identity of property, which requires a full-fledged trial. It is submitted that the Trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion. 7. 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?” 8. It is well settled that the grant of injunction requires satisfaction of three essential ingredients, namely, (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable injury. The Trial Court, on careful consideration, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case and the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025 Trial Court observed that there exists serious dispute regarding the identity and location of the properties. The property claimed by the plaintiff and defendants appears to be distinct and not adjacent. 9. Further, it is a trite that the Appellate Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r), would interfere only when the order of the Trial Court suffers from perversity, arbitrariness or illegality. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the Trial Court has considered the pleadings and material on record and exercised its discretion judicially and does not suffer from any perversity or arbitrariness warranting interference. The dispute as to the identity of the property and existence of the passage are matters which require a full-fledged trial, and no conclusive findings can be recorded at this stage. In view of the above, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19398 MFA No. 3604 of 2025 ORDER i. The miscellaneous first appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The order dated 24.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S. No.2726/2024 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH- 23), Bengaluru is hereby confirmed. iii. The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. iv. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41