- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32187 W.P. No.19477/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.19477/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. T.S. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE SIMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT THINDLU VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 067. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. MUKUNDAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS SINCE DEAD. 2. T.M. GOPALAPPA S/O MUKUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 3. T.M. RAMACHANDRA S/O MUKUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 4. T.M. MUNIRAJU S/O MUKUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32187 W.P. No.19477/2021 RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT THINDLU VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH, ADV., FOR SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV., FOR R2 TO R4 R1 IS DEAD) ****** THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 12.07.2021 IN M.A. NO.33/2021 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNX-A AND FOR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OF DIRECTION ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.07.2021 passed in M.A.No.33/2021 by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32187 W.P. No.19477/2021 2. Heard Sri.K.Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Yogesh, learned counsel for Sri.P.H.Virupakshaiah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. The petitioner has filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.129/2017. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed two applications in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the prayer of temporary injunction. The said applications came to be allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 29.03.2021 by restraining the defendants, workers, nominators, GPA holders, etc. from interfering with the suit schedule property and to obstruct the construction work put up by the plaintiff in the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The defendants assailed the order of the Trial Court before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.33/2021. The Appellate Court vide order dated 12.07.2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32187 W.P. No.19477/2021 the Trial Court dated 29.03.2021. Being aggrieved, this petition is filed by the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI vs. HARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI AND OTHERS1. It would be useful to refer to paragraphs 19 to 21 of the aforesaid judgment: “Appellate jurisdiction under Order 43CPC 19. Order 43CPC specifies the orders against which an appeal lies. Sub-rule (r) of Rule 1 of the said order provides that an appeal would lie against an order made under Rules 1, 2, 2-A, 4 and 10 of Order 39CPC, respectively. 20. The law in relation to the scope of an appeal against grant or non-grant of interim injunction was laid down by this Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. [Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727] Antox brought an action of passing off against Wander with respect to the mark Cal-De-Ce. The trial court declined Antox's plea for an interim injunction, however, on appeal the High Court reversed the 1 (2024) 11 SCC 351 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32187 W.P. No.19477/2021 findings of the trial Judge. This Court, upon due consideration of the matter, took notice of two egregious errors said to have been committed by the High Court: (a) First, as regards the scope and nature of the appeals before it and the limitations on the powers of the appellate court to substitute its own discretion in an appeal preferred against a discretionary order; and (b) Secondly, the weakness in ratiocination as to the quality of Antox's alleged user of the trade mark on which the passing off action is founded. 21. With regard to (a), this Court held thus: (Wander case [Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727] , SCC p. 733, para 14) “14. … In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of the first instance and substitute its own discretion, except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely, or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. … The appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below.… If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32187 W.P. No.19477/2021 interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion.” 5. It is to be noticed that the Appellate Court, while considering the appeal of the defendants, has formulated the points for consideration and while recording the finding on point No.1, it is stated as negative. However, the appeal is allowed. 6. Be that as it may, it is required to be noticed that the Appellate Court at paragraphs 16 to 21 has recorded its finding to allow the appeal. A bare perusal of the reasoning of the Appellate Court makes it prima facie clear that the observation of the Appellate Court with regard to the parties and the documents are inconsistent and contrary to each other. In paragraph 20 of the order, the Appellate Court has observed that if temporary injunction is granted by way of allowing this appeal, then there would be lapse while passing the final order and judgment. If this reasoning is accepted, it gives an impression that the appeal is filed by the plaintiff. Be that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32187 W.P. No.19477/2021 as it may, the Appellate Court recorded a perverse finding in coming to the conclusion that the order of the Trial Court dated 29.03.2021 is required to be set aside. The order of the Appellate Court does not indicate even a single reason as to how the order of the Trial Court is incorrect and contrary to the material placed before it. 7. In the absence of any proper reasoning and incorrect observation by the Appellate Court, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if the Appellate Court is directed to re-consider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.07.2021 passed in M.A.No.33/2021 by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32187 W.P. No.19477/2021 M.A.No.33/2021 is restored on the file of the said Court. (iii) The Appellate Court shall consider and dispose of the said appeal in accordance with law. (iv) The parties shall appear before the Appellate Court on 03.08.2026 without awaiting any notice. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36