- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24685 MFA No. 4242 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4242 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ARATI D/O LATE MR. MADHUSUDHAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22, 16TH CROSS, JP NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078. 2. SMT. KIRAN D/O LATE MR. MADHUSUDHAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.76 KARISHMA HILLS, 80 FT ROAD, GUBBALALA, BENGALURU-560 061. 3. SHRI. M.A. AVINASH S/O LATE M. MADHUSUDHAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3/28, 47TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560018. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. PARVATHY R. NAIR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI M. NAGARAJ (DEAD BY LRs.) 1(a) SMT. BHAGYA NAGARAJ W/O LATE SRI NAGARAJ, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24685 MFA No. 4242 of 2025 1(b) SRI YASHWANTH NAGARAJ, S/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED MAJOR, 1(c) SRI AJAY NAGARAJ, S/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED MAJOR, 1(d) SRI NAVEEN NAGARAJ, S/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT 71, 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018. 2. SHRI M. KRISHNAMURTHY (DEAD BY LRs.) 2(a) SMT. NAGARATHNA, W/O LATE M. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED MAJOR 2(b) SHRI BALACHANDRA, S/O LATE M. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED MAJOR, 2(c) SHRI SHAMSUNDAR, S/O LATE M. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED MAJOR, 2(d) SHRI PURUSHOTHAM, S/O LATE M. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED MAJOR ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.73/1, V MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018. 3. SHRI M. MANOHAR (DEAD BY LRs.) 3(a) M. CHANDRAPRABHA W/O LATE M. MANOHAR NO.149, 1ST MAIN ROAD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24685 MFA No. 4242 of 2025 MLA LAYOUT, RT NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. 3(b) M. SRINIVAS PRASAD NO.71, SHREE NIVAS, BOARD ACRES STUD FARM YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 032. 3(c) M. CHAITANYA MANOHAR NO.149, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MLA LAYOUT, RT NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. 4. SHRI VENKATARAMAIAH (DEAD BY LRS) 4(a) SMT. B.V. ANJANA DEVI, D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 21ST MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 011. 5. SHRI B.V. SHRIDHAR S/O M. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 6. SHRI B.V. SRIKUMAR S/O M. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESPONDENT 4-6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.63M “GAURI NIVAS”, 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018. 7. SMT. B.V. ANJANA DEVI D/O SRI VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.566, 21ST MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 011. 8. SHRI SRIKANTH S/O DR. R. SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24685 MFA No. 4242 of 2025 R/AT NO.31, GAVIPURAM EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 011. 9. SHRI PRASHANTH S/O DR. R. SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.31, GAVIPURAM EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560011. 10. SMT. K. KUSUMA D/O LATE D.R. MADHAVAKRISHNAIAH, W/O R. THIRUMALRAJ, MAJOR RESIDING AT LIC MODEL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560010. 11. SMT. M. NANDADEVI D/O LATE D.R. MADHAVAKRISHNAIAH, W/O RAMAMURHTY, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.99, D/2 BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560019. 12. M/S. T.R. MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5TH MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018 COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1913. 13. M/S. CHANDRA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS (P) LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5TH MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018. COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1913. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. SUBHASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1(a to d); SRI L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3(a to c)) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24685 MFA No. 4242 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2025 PASSED IN MISC.NO.25134/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, (CCH NO.29), BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed calling in question the order dated 03.06.2025 passed on I.A No.2/2025 in Misc. No. 25134/2014 on the file of XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru (‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the appellants under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction was rejected. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The appellants herein are the petitioners in Misc. No. 25134/2014, filed seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed in OS No. 10363/1987, on the ground that they had no knowledge of the proceedings and that no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24685 MFA No. 4242 of 2025 notice was served upon them. It is their case that during the pendency of the said miscellaneous petition, the respondents have proceeded to deal with the suit schedule properties, including effecting transfers and altering revenue records. It is further contended that the final decree proceedings were initiated and the properties were divided without notice to the appellants. 3. In that background, the appellants filed I.A No. 2/2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking to restrain the respondent No.3 from alienating or creating third party rights and to direct maintenance of status quo in respect of the suit schedule properties, pending disposal of the main petition. 4. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties by the impugned order, rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. Sri S Sreevatsa, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, contends that the Trial Court has failed to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24685 MFA No. 4242 of 2025 appreciate that the appellants, had no notice of the original proceedings and the decree sought to be set aside is ex parte in nature. It is submitted that the respondents have, during the pendency of the proceedings, proceeded to alienate and deal with the suit properties and thereby defeating the rights of the appellants. It is further contended that unless, an order of temporary injunction is granted, the very subject matter of the proceedings would be altered irreversibly and appellants would suffer irreparable injury. 6. Per contra, Sri Sri L.M.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 (a) to (c) and Sri S.Subhash, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 (a) to (d) support the impugned order and contend that the original suit in O.S. No. 10363/1987 has already culminated in a decree and final decree proceedings, have already attained finality. It is submitted that the appellants, were aware about the proceedings and have participated therein and therefore cannot now seek to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24685 MFA No. 4242 of 2025 reopen the matter. It is further contended, that there is an inordinate delay of several years in approaching the Court and that the appellants have failed to establish any prima facie case. It is also urged that in view of the earlier directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.2459/2024 restraining alienation, the present application itself is not maintainable. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is, “whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants interference by this Court?” 8. The principal ground, on which the Trial Court has rejected the application is in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P No.2459/2024 dated 19.02.2024, directing the parties not to alienate the property, the present application was not maintainable. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in W.P - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24685 MFA No. 4242 of 2025 11605/2025, this Court has clarified that the order passed in W.P 2459/2024 would only apply to the parties therein, namely Arathi, Kiran and M. A. Avinash and respondents 1(a) to 1(d) therein and the said order would not apply to the petitioners in W.P. No.11605/2025, the operative portion of the order in WP 11605/2025 is culled out for ready reference : “Under these circumstances, W.P.No. 11605/2025 is disposed of clarifying that the aforesaid order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2459/2024 dated 19.02.2024 would be applicable only to Smt. Arathi, Sri Kiran and Sri. M.A. Avinash, who were petitioners in W.P.No.2459/2024 and Smt. Bhagya Nagaraj, Sri Yashwanth Nagaraj and Sri Ajay Nagaraj and to Sri Naveen Nagaraj who were respondent Nos.1 (a) to (d) in W.P.No.2459/2024 and the said order would not be applicable to the petitioners in the present W.P.No.11605/2024.” 9. In view of the said clarification, the very foundation on which the reasoning of the Trial Court is based, stands vitiated. The finding that the application is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24685 MFA No. 4242 of 2025 not maintainable, on account of subsistence of an order of protection, thus cannot be sustained. 10. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioners under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC is required to be considered independently, on its own merits with reference to the settled principles governing grant of temporary injunction, namely existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Therefore, the impugned order warrants interference. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following : ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The order dated 03.06.2025 passed on I.A No. 2/2025 in Misc. No. 25134/2014 on the file of XXVIII Additional City Civil and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24685 MFA No. 4242 of 2025 Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of I.A No. 2/2025 in accordance with law in light of the observation made herein, without being influenced by the earlier findings. (iv) No opinion is expressed on the merits or demerits of this case. All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be decided. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69