- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24355 MFA No. 3365 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.3365 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. JYOTI VIJAY DABI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O SRI VIJAY KUMAR DABI, R/AT #14/2, ASHIRWAD 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS ROAD, NANDIDURGA ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560046 REP. BY SPA HODAR MR. VIJAYA KUMAR DABI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: KUM RUBIA AHMED MAJOR IN AGE R/AT NO.9, 2ND MAIN ROAD, AATMANANDA COLONY, NEAR SULTAN PALYA BUS STOP, R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560032. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.C. NARASIMHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.1218/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-28), ALLOWING I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 151 OF CPC. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24355 MFA No. 3365 of 2025 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 challenging the order dated 12.03.2025 passed on I.A. No.2 in O.S. No.1218/2021 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 28) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent-defendant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, restraining the plaintiff-appellant from disconnecting the water, electricity and sanitation to the suit schedule property. Brief facts: 2. The appellant has instituted the suit seeking for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages, contending that the respondent is in unauthorised occupation after the expiry of the lease period. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24355 MFA No. 3365 of 2025 respondent-defendant, while contesting the suit, filed I.A. No.2, alleging that the appellant has disconnected essential services and sought an order of injunction restraining such disconnection. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the said application, holding that the respondent has made out a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury were in her favour. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that: i. The cause of action pleaded in the application is entirely distinct and independent from the cause of action pleaded in the plaint. ii. The scheme of Order XXXIX Rules 1(a), (b) and (c) clearly delineates the circumstances under which interim relief can be granted and the persons to whom such relief is available. iii. Placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Shakunthalamma and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24355 MFA No. 3365 of 2025 others Vs. Smt. Kanthamma and others1 (Shakunthalamma), submits that: a. Both plaintiff and defendant can maintain an application only under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a). b. Reliefs under Rules 1(b) and (c) are available only to the plaintiff and the defendant cannot maintain such an application in a suit filed by the plaintiff, irrespective of whether the cause of action arises from the same or subsequent events. iv. The present application is based on the subsequent cause of action, namely alleged disconnection of amenities, which is not the subject matter of the suit and therefore, the application itself is not maintainable. v. It is further contented that, even assuming such a grievance exists, the defendant ought to have instituted a separate suit seeking appropriate relief. vi. The Trial Court has failed to consider the statutory limitation on maintainability and has erroneously exercised jurisdiction. 1 ILR 2014 KAR 6025 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24355 MFA No. 3365 of 2025 vii. Though the Court possesses, inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, the impugned order does not disclose any reasoning as to why such an extraordinary jurisdiction was invoked, especially when statutory framework does not permit such relief. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator- respondent would contend that: i. The respondent is in possession of the suit property, which has been subjected to disconnection of basic amenities, essential for human survival. ii. The Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in protecting such basic rights pending adjudication of the suit. iii. It is contended that the Court is empowered to grant such relief, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in order to prevent hardship and injustice. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24355 MFA No. 3365 of 2025 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submission and perused material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court granting injunction in favour of the defendant warrants any interference by this Court?” 6. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the suit instituted by the appellant is one for ejectment and recovery of the arrears of rent. Whereas the application filed by the respondent is based on an alleged subsequent cause of action, namely disconnection of water, electricity and sanitation. At this point, it is relevant to refer to Order XXXIX Rules 1(a), (b) and (c), which reads as under: “1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.-Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise- (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in a execution of a decree, or - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24355 MFA No. 3365 of 2025 (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors, (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.” 7. The distinction in the statutory scheme under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a), (b) and (c) assumes significance. A plain reading of Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC makes it clear that clause (a) applies to “any party” whereas clause (b) and (c) specifically deals with the acts of the defendant against the plaintiff, thereby confining such relief to the plaintiff alone. The Full Bench of this Court, in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24355 MFA No. 3365 of 2025 Shakunthalamma’s case, at paragraph No.33 has authoritatively held as under: “33. The correct legal position as is clear from the statutory provision is as under: (i) Both the plaintiff and the defendant can maintain an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) of the Code for the reliefs set out in the said provision; (ii) Insofar as relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) and (c) is concerned, such a relief is available only to the plaintiff and the defendant cannot maintain an application for the said reliefs in a suit filed by the plaintiff, irrespective of the fact that his right to such relief arises either from the same cause of action or a cause of action that arises subsequent to filing of the suit. However it is open to the defendant to maintain a separate suit against the plaintiff and seek relief provided under Order 39 Rule 1(b) and (c) of the Code. (iii) In cases which do not fall under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief of injunction in its discretion, if it is satisfied that such an order is necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24355 MFA No. 3365 of 2025 the court and nothing in this Code shall limit or otherwise affect such inherent power of the court.” 8. The Full Bench in Shakunthalamma’s case held that while both plaintiff and defendant may maintain an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 (a), the reliefs contemplated under Rule 1 (b) and (c) are available only to the plaintiff, and the defendant cannot maintain an application for such reliefs in a suit instituted by the plaintiff, irrespective of whether the cause of action arises from the same transaction or subsequent events. It is further clarified that in cases where the defendant seeks protection based on an independent or subsequent cause of action, the appropriate remedy is to institute a separate suit, and not to invoke the provisions of Order XXXIX in the pending proceedings. 9. Though the Court retains inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, such powers cannot be exercised in a manner that defeats or circumvent express statutory - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24355 MFA No. 3365 of 2025 limitation. In the present case, the application filed by the respondent-defendant is found on a distinct and subsequent cause of action, namely, which does not fall under the permissible scope of Order XXXIX Rule 1, and the impugned order does not disclose any cogent reasons as to the invocation of inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, the application itself is not maintainable in law. 10. The Trial Court, without addressing the issue of maintainability, has proceeded to record findings on a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, which is in absence of jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order, cannot be sustained. In view of the matter, the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby allowed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24355 MFA No. 3365 of 2025 ii. The impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed on I.A. No.2 in O.S. No.1218/2021 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-28) is hereby set aside. iii. The application filed by the respondent-defendant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC stands rejected. iv. However, it is made clear that the respondent is at liberty to work out her remedy in accordance with law. v. The Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23