- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4168 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO. 03, SAMPANNA LAYOUT KALIDASA ROAD, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KACHARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU 560 084 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANU K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.RADHA W/O LATE S.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. SRI. K. CHETHAN, S/O LATE S.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3. SRI. K. RAKSHITH, W/O LATE S.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 05, SAMPANNA LAYOUT, KALIDASA ROAD, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026 KAMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KACHARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU - 560 084 …RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 43 RULE 1 (r) OF THE CPC, 1908, TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24/04/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S. NO.8489/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF I.A.NO.1 AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents at this stage. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has decided to dispose of the matter at the initial stage of admission itself. 3. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.8489/2025 dated 24.04.2026 on the application- I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026 appellant-plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for the following reliefs: "a) Declare that Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Schedule 'B' property B) Directing the Defendants to handover the encroached schedule 'B' property as mentioned in the plaint to the plaintiff and put the Plaintiff in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule 'B' Property. C) Directing the Defendants to pay the damages of Rs. 78,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs Only) to the Plaintiff for illegal possession of the encroached schedule 'B' property as mentioned in the plaint with applicable interest till realization of the suit. D) Grant permanent injunction directing the Defendants not to run the business in the Schedule 'B' Property and not to create nuisance in respect of the Schedule 'B' Property belongs to the Plaintiff. E) Grant other reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity." 4. Along with the plaint, an application came to be filed seeking an order of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking the following reliefs: "That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the Plaintiff pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased directing the Defendants not to run the Bar namely Sampige Bar & Restaurant till - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026 disposal of the above suit in respect of the 'B' Schedule Property and not to create any nuisance in respect of the 'B' Schedule Property till disposal of the above suit, in the interest of justice and equity." 5. Upon notice being served, the defendants appeared; filed their written statement; objected the application and took up several contentions including the suit being not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the application. 6. Learned trial Judge, upon consideration of the application, did not find favour with the plaintiff for the reason that the relief sought for by the plaintiff could not be granted as admittedly the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration of ownership over the 'B' schedule property so also the possession over the 'B' schedule property, which the defendants have encroached and for a direction to the defendants to pay damages for illegal possession of the encroached portion of 'B' schedule property. It is also seen from the impugned order that the defendants have subleased item Nos.1 to 3 of the 'B' schedule property to another person by name G.Veerabhadra. The defendants are running a Bar and Restaurant illegally in the 'B' schedule property, which is the absolute property of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026 plaintiff and therefore, they are not entitled to continue possession and enjoyment and moreover, they are creating nuisance in the 'B' schedule property. 7. The prayer sought in the application is for a direction to the defendants to not run the bar namely Sampige Bar and Restaurant in the 'B' schedule property and also not to create any nuisance in the 'B' schedule property. 8. Apparently, even according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not in any possession of 'B' schedule property, though he claims to be the owner of 'B' schedule property. It is also admitted that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of 'B' schedule property and illegally running the Bar and Restaurant stated herein above. Therefore, by looking into these aspects of admitted facts, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case for grant of an interim order in his favour. So also, the balance of convenience would tilt more in favour of the defendants rather than the plaintiff as the plaintiff has admitted the defendants to be in possession, enjoyment and carrying on business of Bar and Restaurant in the 'B' schedule property. It - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026 appears from the prayer made that the prayer in the application is not very happily worded as argued and contented by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court. 9. Be that as it may, however, the trial Court and this Court will have to go by the relief sought for by the plaintiff and rightfully the trial Court has discussed these issues and having not found any good ground or cogent reason to allow the application in favour of the plaintiff or want of prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused to her rather than the defendants, has negated the relief and dismissed the application. 10. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge. However, the plaintiff would be at liberty to file a fresh application, if so warrants, by seeking fresh relief. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Appeal is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29856 MFA No. 4168 of 2026 ii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and any other relief that may be claimed. iii) The observations made herein are specific to the application herein before me. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50