- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3446 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O GAJENDRA REDDY 2. SRI. K. GAJENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNA REDDY, BOTH R/AT NO.13, 2ND CROSS, SAMRAT LAYOUT, AREKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S. NARAHARI RAO AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O LATE A. SRINIVASA RAO, 2. SMT. GEETHA NARAHARI RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O LATE S. NARAHARI RAO, 3. SRI. N. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE S. NARAHARI RAO, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 ALL R/AT OLD NO.28, NEW NO.4 8TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA, KORAMANAGALA 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 034. 4. SRI. VYSHNAV D., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O P. DHANRAJ, R/AT NO.739, 37TH F CROSS, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041. 5. SRI. VARADARAJU B.N SON OF NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NO.1593, 20TH MAIN, NEAR BMTC DEPO, HSR LAYOUT, 1ST SECTOR BANGALORE - 560 120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.V. RAMAMOORTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 IN IA NO.7 IN (CP NO.9749/26); SRI. SANJAY KUMAR A., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.06.2026, R2 AND R3 ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASED R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.16/04/2026 PASSED ON IA NO.7 IN O.S.NO.1112/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU ALLOWING THE IA NO.7 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs questioning the order passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.1112/2025 by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-45). 2. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per their original status as plaintiffs and defendants. 3. The plaintiffs initiated the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale entered into by defendant Nos.1 to 3 dated 13.02.2012. In the said suit two applications i.e., I.A.Nos.6 and 7 came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with 151 of CPC. I.A.No.6 came to be filed by the plaintiffs for restrainment order against defendant No.5 alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property in favour of third parties pending disposal of the suit. I.A.No.7 came to be filed by the plaintiffs on 20.01.2025 seeking to restrain defendant No.5 from putting up any sort of construction over the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The defendants filed their statement of objections denying the contentions on the plea raised by the plaintiffs with regard to the applications so also, with regard to the main suit. 4. The learned trial Judge after considering the applications, allowed I.A.No.6 in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No.5 was temporarily restrained from alienating, selling or otherwise creating third party interest in respect of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit or until further orders. Whereas, I.A.No.7 filed by the plaintiffs for restraining defendant No.5 from putting up any sort of construction on the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit, came to be dismissed. It is this application that is questioned by the appellants- plaintiffs before this Court. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel Sri.Sunil S. Rao, appearing on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs that the trial Court has committed serious error in dismissing the application and has not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 taken into consideration the materials placed before the Court and the averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint, so also, the averments in the affidavit annexed to the application. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel that defendant No.4 during the subsistence of the suit proceedings and during the subsistence of the interim order, has conveyed the suit schedule property by executing sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 on 14.02.2025. Therefore, he contends that defendant No.5 who is the subsequent purchaser is a pendente lite purchaser and cannot claim any right or interest over the suit schedule property and therefore, trial Court ought to have allowed the application while it allowed the another application with regard to not to alienate the suit schedule property. Consequently, I.A.No.7 ought to have been allowed by the trial Court restraining defendant No.5 from putting up any sort of construction in the suit schedule property which would curtail multiplicity of proceedings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 Otherwise, the same would lead to various other consequences which is not compensatable by way of cost. 7. The learned counsel further contends that the trial Court has committed a serious error and perversity in holding that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of plaintiffs rather than defendant No.5 and no material satisfactory evidence has been produced by defendant No.5 to reject an order in favour of the plaintiffs which according to the plaintiffs is not correct as the plaintiffs have placed sufficient material and cogent reasons are made out for grant of order of restrainment against defendant No.5 from putting up any sort of construction in the suit schedule property. 8. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs that trial Court has committed illegality in coming to the conclusion that there was no construction activities which had taken place or which was being conducted or any such attempts being made by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 defendant No.5 in order to restrain defendant No.5 from putting up any such construction in the suit schedule property. 9. Learned counsel further contends that the suit property is situated in a highly commercial exploitable area and any construction if ventured by defendant No.5 would create multiplicity of proceedings and severe hardship and inconvenience would be caused to the plaintiffs, as in the event plaintiffs succeeds in the suit, it would be difficult for the plaintiffs to recover the property in its original status and any such construction put up by defendant No.5 will again cause difficulty in demolition and defendant No.5 may raise equity before the Court for claiming damages. Therefore he contends that the trial Court has committed serious error in not granting the order of injunction as against defendant No.5. 10. As it is seen from the records, the sale deed of defendant No.5 executed by defendant No.4 is on 14.02.2025, which is later than the filing of the suit and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 the application and when the matter was reserved for orders on the application filed by the plaintiffs at the first instance with regard to restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 or 4 from alienating the property whereby the trial Court had passed on order restraining defendant No.4 from alienating the suit schedule property, vide its order dated 17.02.2025. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 together submit that there is no illegality or perversity or error in the order passed by the learned trial Judge. He further contended that the trial Court has passed reasonable order allowing I.A.No.6 restraining defendant No.5 from alienating, selling or otherwise creating third party interest with regard to suit schedule property. However, with regard to I.A.No.7 where the plaintiffs have sought for restrainment of defendant No.5 from putting up any further construction, the trial Court rightly came to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 conclusion that plaintiffs did not make out prima facie case warranting any relief at this stage. 12. Learned counsel for defendant No.5 further contends that suit came to be filed on 13.02.2025 to seek enforcement of specific performance of agreement of sale of the year 13.02.2012 whereby the plaintiffs kept quite all these years and hence the suit itself is not maintainable and it is barred by law of limitation. 13. It is also contended by both the learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 that agreement of sale is a fabricated document which is not admitted either by defendant Nos.1 to 3 or 5 and it is too premature for this Court to come to the conclusion that plaintiffs have made out a valid ground with regard to the validity of agreement of sale, which itself is in a serious question. 14. Defendant No.5 further contends that he is a bonafide purchaser having purchased the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed on 14.02.2025 from defendant No.4. He conducted a due diligence prior - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 to purchase of the property having put up a public notice on 21.09.2024 in the widely circulated English Newspaper namely 'New Indian Express' circulated in Bengaluru. As there was no claim made by any one whatsoever, including the plaintiffs, he proceeded further and paid the sale consideration, as such he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. 15. It is also contended by the learned counsel that defendant No.5 has spent huge amount of more than Rs.6.00 crores in purchasing the suit schedule property and while doing so, he has obtained bank loan and he is paying EMI of more than Rs.3.00 lakh p.m. to the financial institution, therefore, any order restraining him from putting up construction would cause severe hardship and would bring defendant No.5 to the street for no fault, as he is a bonafide purchaser from defendant No.4 who had a proper and valid title to sell the suit schedule property. 16. Learned counsel for defendant No.5 further contends that he has accepted the orders passed on - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 I.A.No.6 with regard to not to alienate the suit schedule property and not to create any third party interest for the reason that as he has not questioned the said order but putting defendant No.5 to terms not to put up any further construction would cause severe hardship, as it is for the plaintiffs to establish their case which in the probability of defendant would be refused considering the fact that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have not admitted the agreement of sale so also the transaction of payment as alleged by the plaintiffs. On these grounds, learned counsel for the defendants seek for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Judge. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants. 18. It is a fundamental rule of law that while considering an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, the Courts are required to consider three essential - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 requirements namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused to the aggrieved party. It is also fundamental rule that the Court need not to conduct a mini-trial while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, Court will have to appreciate the materials placed on record by both the parties and come to a conclusion as to whether prima facie case is made out by any of the party and a balance of convenience tilting in one of the parties favour and against which party, the hardship would be caused on, considering the facts and circumstance of each case. 19. The present case on hand appears that defendant No.5 has purchased the suit schedule property by way of a registered sale deed from defendant No.4. No doubt, there was an order passed by the trial Court restraining defendant No.4 from alienating the suit schedule property by its order dated 17.02.2025. Apparently it is seen that this order is subsequent to the purchase of the suit schedule property by defendant No.5 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 from defendant No.4. No doubt, the application and the suit was filed on 13.02.2025 and an order came to be passed on 17.02.2025, restraining defendant No.4 from alienating the suit schedule property. The fact remains that I.A.No.7 is filed on 20.01.2026. Therefore, as on date of the sale deed executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 there is no order operating for sale of the suit schedule property by defendant No.4. 20. It is also seen that defendant No.5 has published a newspaper publication for due diligence for purchase of the suit schedule property and no objection was raised by anyone whatsoever and he has spent huge amount of Rs.6.00 crores for purchase of suit schedule property and he is also paying EMI of Rs.3.00 lakh monthly and in such situation, if defendant No.5 who has already put up construction in the suit schedule property, is restrained from putting up construction, it is but natural that he will incur huge financial loss and irreparable - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 hardship would be caused to him, more than that of the plaintiffs. 21. As stated by me earlier, while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, the prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship are the three essential aspects will have to be looked into. The trial Court has diligently gone into these aspects and has come to a conclusion that hardship would be caused more to the defendant rather than plaintiffs and has rejected the application, which according to me does not call for interference. 22. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for defendant No.5 has also submitted that he may be permitted to put up construction in the suit schedule property and in the case, if the plaintiffs succeeds in the suit, he would not claim equity, which is a fair statement. 23. Therefore, the statement of the learned counsel for defendant No.5 is placed on record and he could be put - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28690 MFA No. 3446 of 2026 to terms that in case the plaintiffs succeeds in the suit, defendant No.5 shall not claim equity and in case of any illegality, breach and violation of municipal laws in putting up construction, it will be the exclusive liability of defendant No.5. 24. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed with the observations made hereinabove. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26