- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.510 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATH B.N. S/O SRI NATARAJ .B AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT 21, 1ST F CROSS, J.C. NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SRIHARI N.S., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI .VASANTH KUMAR H.G. S/O LATE SRI GOPALA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.23/1, HENNAGARA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 105. ALSO AT NO.4/01 (OLD NO.418) 6TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, BBMP WARD NO.65, HOMBEGOWDA NAGARA, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISWANATHA REDDY G.A., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.5061/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-28), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 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 preferred by the defendant against the order dated 15.11.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.5061/2024 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant (appellant herein) from interfering with the alleged possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Brief facts: 2. The plaintiff instituted suit for permanent injunction claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule property on basis of partition. It is his case that, he has let out the property to tenants and continues to be in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 possession through them. The undisputed material on record discloses that the plaintiff had availed loan from the SLV Souharda Pattina Sahakari Niyamitha by mortgaging the suit property. Upon default, recovery proceedings were initiated culminating in an award dated 21.12.2020, followed by auction proceedings, wherein the appellant emerged as a highest bidder. A sale certificate dated 14.12.2023 was issued in favour of the appellant. 3. The challenge to the said proceedings had already attained finality in W.P. No.26112/2024 and in W.A. No.598/2025 preferred by the plaintiff. The Division Bench of this Court refused to grant interim order, despite the same, the application for injunction in the suit filed by the plaintiff was pressed and the impugned order of injunction was granted. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has committed a serious error in granting injunction in favour of a person who has already lost both - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 title and possession pursuant to lawful auction proceedings. It is submitted that the issuance of sale certificate vests with a valid title and rights in favour of the auction purchaser and therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for permanent injunction without seeking a declaration of title. It is brought to the notice of this Court, by the appellant by way of a memo dated 25.03.2026, that writ petition in W.P. No.26112/2024 filed by the respondent came to be dismissed on 12.03.2025 and that further proceedings, including writ appeal in W.A. No.598/2025, the Division Bench of this Court refused to grant an interim relief and the appeal preferred before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.30719/2025 was also dismissed and declined to interfere with the order dated 25.09.2025, refusing to grant interim order in W.A. No.598/2025. 5. It is submitted that all these developments have taken place during the pendency of the suit and prior to the passing of the impugned order of temporary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 injunction dated 15.11.2025 and these material facts were not brought to the notice of the Trial Court by the plaintiff while seeking an equitable relief of injunction. It is submitted that the present suit is an indirect attempt to circumvent those proceedings. The Trial Court has failed to consider that the plaintiff is not in actual possession and has relied upon a vague plea of tenants being in possession. Even assuming tenants are in possession, they are not parties to the suit and plaintiff cannot seek an injunction on their behalf. It is contended that the impugned order is perverse, illegal and contrary to the settled principles governing grant of temporary injunction. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the plaintiff continues to be in possession of the suit schedule property through tenants and that the defendant on the strength of sale certificate, is attempting to dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law. It is further submitted that possession, even if disputed, deserves protection until adjudication of rights in the suit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 and that the Trial Court has rightly exercised discretion in granting injunction to prevent irreparable injury. 7. This Court has carefully considered the contentions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference by this Court?” 8. The Trial Court observed that the plaintiff has established a prima facie possession relying upon the assertion that the property has been let out to tenants and that irreparable injury would be caused, if the plaintiff is dispossessed and balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff. For such reason, the Trial Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction claiming possession over the suit schedule property on basis of partition and asserting that the property has been let out to tenants. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 9. The appellant, on the other hand, claims right as an auction purchaser pursuant to recovery proceedings initiated under the Karnataka State Souharda Co- Operative Act, culminating in award dated 21.12.2020, followed by auction and issuance of sale certificate dated 14.12.2023. The material on record discloses that the statutory proceedings have been carried out through various stages, including dismissal of Appeal No.364/2023 before the Tribunal on 18.09.2024, dismissal of W.P. No.26112/2024 on 12.03.2025 and refusal of an interim relief in W.A. No.598/2025 on 25.09.2025, which refusal has also not been interfered with by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.30719/2025 . 10. Despite the above developments, the plaintiff failed to bring to the notice of the Trial Court while the impugned order was passed on 15.11.2025. Such omission of the crucial developments has a direct bearing on the entitlement of the plaintiff to seek equitable relief. The plaintiff, who had knowledge of these proceedings, has not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 placed the complete and correct factual position before the Court and sought to obtain an order of injunction without disclosing the dismissal of the statutory appeal and writ proceedings. Such suppression of material facts disentitles the plaintiff to any equitable relief. 11. The reasoning of the Trial Court in holding that the plaintiff is in possession is also wholly unsustainable. The Trial Court has proceeded on the footing that the plaintiff has let out the property to tenants and that the tenants are in possession. This finding, in the opinion of this Court, is perverse. Once the plaintiff himself asserts that he is not in actual possession and relies upon the alleged tenants, who are not parties to the proceedings, the plaintiff cannot seek an order of injunction on their behalf. The plea of tenancy in the facts of the present case appears to be an attempt to circumvent the effect of the auction proceedings and the orders directing delivery of possession. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 such a plea cannot form a valid basis for grant of temporary injunction. 12. Further, the grant of injunction in the present case virtually amounts to permitting the plaintiff to achieve indirectly what has been expressly denied to him directly by the statutory authorities, this Court and the Apex Court. When the Division Bench had declined to grant interim protection in the writ appeal and said refusal has been affirmed by the Apex Court, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to secure an order of injunction from the Civil Court so as to nullify the effect of those orders. The impugned order, therefore, results in overreaching and undermining the orders passed by the superior courts. 13. The Trial Court also failed to consider the effect of a sale certificate issued in favour of the appellant. Once the auction proceedings have culminated and the sale certificate has been issued, the rights of the auction purchaser stand crystallized, subject, of course, to any - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 challenge in appropriate proceedings. In the absence of any relief of declaration sought by the plaintiff, a suit for injunction against an auction purchaser is not maintainable. This fundamental aspect has been completely overlooked by the Trial Court. 14. The principles governing the grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC have also been misapplied. The existence of a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience must be assessed in the light of entire factual matrix, including the concluded proceedings and the rights accrued to the auction purchaser. 15. In the present case, no prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff in view of the finality attained to the recovery proceedings. The balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff, who seeks to resist the consequences of such proceedings by instituting a suit - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 for injunction. The finding of the Trial Court on these aspects, is, therefore clearly erroneous. 16. Though it is true that the Appellate Court would ordinarily be slow to interfere with the discretionary power of the Trial Court as held in Wander Ltd. and Another Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.1 (Wander Ltd.) such restraint does not apply when the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, perversely and in ignorance and contrary to the settled principles of law. 17. In the present case, the Trial Court has failed to consider that the injunction sought is to circumvent the auction proceedings. The impugned order therefore suffers from perversity warranting interference and the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed. 1 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19792 MFA No. 510 of 2026 ii. The order dated 15.11.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.5061/2024 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and Rule 2 stands rejected. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51