Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4649 (KAR)

SRI G S SUDHARSHAN v. GRAMA SEVA SANGHA TRUST

MFA/7165/2025 · 2026-03-17

K S Hemalekha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7165 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7164 OF 2025 (CPC) IN MFA NO.7165/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI G.S. SUDHARSHAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O LATE G.N. SRIRAMU, R/AT NO.14, S.B. ROAD, V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU-560004. 2. SMT. AMBUNJAMMA W/O LATE SRI R.N. NARENDRANATH, AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.17/1, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 3. SMT. MAMATHA B.V. D/O VENKATRAMA .B AGED 53 YEARS, NO.42, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI MARAMMA TEMPLE, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU-560004. SRI B.V. SAMPATH AGED 62 YEARS, S/O B.M. VENKATARAMANAPPA R/AT NO.24, ANNAPURNESHWARI NILAYA, SIDDEGOWDA STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 BENGALURU-560004. DEAD AND HENCE NOT MADE PARTY AND LRs. AND NOT NECESSARY TO THE SUIT. 4. SRI V. MANJUNATH AGED 55 YEARS, S/O P. VEERABHADRAPPA, R/AT NO.69, MANJINNA BALLI, MAVALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH WEST GATE, BENGALURU-560004. 5. SRI V. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED 56 YEARS, S/O P. VEERABHADRAPPA, R/AT NO.33/4, 2ND FLOOR, KRUMBIGAL ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004. 6. SRI KAVIRAJA AGED 44 YEARS, S/O PUTTAMUDDAPPA, R/AT NO.E -86, OLD NO.33, RANGAPPA STREET, NEAR LALBAGH, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 7. SRI S. SOMASHEKAR AGED 57 YEARS, S/O LATE SHIVARAM, R/AT NO.02, YELLAPPA STREET, CHUIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 8. SRI S. JAGANNATHA AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE M. SRINIVAS, R/AT NO.35/3, RAMAMURTHY ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALI, BENGALURU-560004. 9. B.V. RAKESH S/O VIJAY KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 NO.1B/25, NEW CROSS ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 10. SRI G. VENKATESH AGED 49 YEARS, S/O GOPAL R/AT NO.2, MUTTON STALL ROAD, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 11. J. PADMANABHA AGED 42 YEARS, S/O M. GANESH MUDALIAUYAR NO.1/A, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 12. N.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 37 YEARS, A/O K.N. PRABHUDEV, NO.12, 4TH CROSS, LALBAGH FRONT ROAD, DODAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.S. RAGHU PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GRAMA SEVA SANGHA TRUST OLD CORPORATION NO.25/A SUSHEELA ROAD, (MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD), CHIKKAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 2. SRI N. VENKATESH S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.58, MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, CHIKKAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 3. SRI M. UDAY SHANKAR S/O LATE H. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.40, SIDDEGOWDA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 4. SRI B.S. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O R. SRINIVASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1/A, BANASHANKARI TEMPLE ROAD, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 5. SRI B. BANASHANKARAPPA S/O EARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26, KEMPANNA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU3560004. 6. SRI S. RAMACHNADRAPPA S/O K. SRINIVASAPPA, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25, SRI MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 7. SRI M. NAGARAJ S/O MUNIRAMAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, MUDDALAPPA CROSS, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 8. SRI M. VISHWANATH S/O MUNISHAMAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.415, MARUTHI LAYOUT, BELTHUR, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU-560067. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 9. SRI B.A. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ABBAIAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 10. SRI MUDLAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.596, 7TH MAIN, TOM CROSS, 3RD STAGE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078. 11. SRI B.M. CHELUVARAJU S/O B.N. MARAPPA, AGED 63 YEARS, NO.3, APPAIANNA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 12. STATE BANK OF INDIA SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE, P.B. NO.423, NO.116, KAVI LAKSHMISHA ROAD, BENGALURU. 13. KARNATAKA BANK R.V. ROAD BRANCH, R.V. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4, R-7 TO R-9 & R-11; SRI VASU K., ADVOCATE FOR R-10; NOTICE TO R-13 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(S) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.8215/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER XL RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 IN MFA NO.7164/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI G.S. SUDHARSHAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O LATE G.N. SRIRAMU, R/AT NO.14, S.B. ROAD, V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU-560004. 2. SMT. AMBUNJAMMA W/O LATE SRI R.N. NARENDRANATH, AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.17/1, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 3. SMT. MAMATHA B.V. D/O VENKATRAMA .B AGED 53 YEARS, NO.42, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI MARAMMA TEMPLE, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU-560004. SRI B.V. SAMPATH AGED 62 YEARS, S/O B.M. VENKATARAMANAPPA R/AT NO.24, ANNAPURNESHWARI NILAYA, SIDDEGOWDA STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. DEAD AND HENCE NOT MADE PARTY AND LRs. AND NOT NECESSARY TO THE APPEAL. 4. SRI V. MANJUNATH AGED 55 YEARS, S/O P. VEERABHADRAPPA, R/AT NO.69, MANJINNA BALLI, MAVALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH WEST GATE, BENGALURU-560004. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 5. SRI V. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED 56 YEARS, S/O P. VEERABHADRAPPA, R/AT NO.33/4, 2ND FLOOR, KRUMBIGAL ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004. 6. SRI KAVIRAJA AGED 44 YEARS, S/O PUTTAMUDDAPPA, R/AT NO.E -86, OLD NO.33, RANGAPPA STREET, NEAR LALBAGH, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 7. SRI S. SOMASHEKAR AGED 57 YEARS, S/O LATE SHIVARAM, R/AT NO.02, YELLAPPA STREET, CHUIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 8. SRI S. JAGANNATHA AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE M. SRINIVAS, R/AT NO.35/3, RAMAMURTHY ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALI, BENGALURU-560004. 9. B.V. RAKESH S/O VIJAY KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, NO.1B/25, NEW CROSS ROAD, CHIKKAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 10. SRI G. VENKATESH AGED 49 YEARS, S/O GOPAL R/AT NO.2, MUTTON STALL ROAD, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 11. J. PADMANABHA AGED 42 YEARS, S/O M. GANESH MUDALIAUYAR NO.1/A, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 12. N.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 37 YEARS, A/O K.N. PRABHUDEV, NO.12, 4TH CROSS, LALBAGH FRONT ROAD, DODAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.S. RAGHU PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GRAMA SEVA SANGHA TRUST OLD CORPORATION NO.25/A SUSHEELA ROAD, (MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD), CHIKKAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 2. SRI N. VENKATESH S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.58, MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, CHIKKAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 3. SRI M. UDAY SHANKAR S/O LATE H. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.40, SIDDEGOWDA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 4. SRI B.S. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O R. SRINIVASAPPA, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1/A, BANASHANKARI TEMPLE ROAD, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 5. SRI B. BANASHANKARAPPA S/O EARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26, KEMPANNA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU3560004. 6. SRI S. RAMACHNADRAPPA S/O K. SRINIVASAPPA, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25, SRI MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 7. SRI M. NAGARAJ S/O MUNIRAMAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, MUDDALAPPA CROSS, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 8. SRI M. VISHWANATH S/O MUNISHAMAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.415, MARUTHI LAYOUT, BELTHUR, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU-560067. 9. SRI B.A. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ABBAIAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, PAPAIAH STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 10. SRI MUDLAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.596, 7TH MAIN, TOM CROSS, 3RD STAGE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078. 11. SRI B.M. CHELUVARAJU S/O B.N. MARAPPA, AGED 63 YEARS, NO.3, APPAIANNA STREET, DODDAMAVAHALLI, BENGALURU-560004. 12. STATE BANK OF INDIA SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE, P.B. NO.423, NO.116, KAVI LAKSHMISHA ROAD, BENGALURU. 13. KARNATAKA BANK R.V. ROAD BRANCH, R.V. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4, R-7 TO R-9 & R-11; SRI VASU K., ADVOCATE FOR R-10; NOTICE TO R-13 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(S) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.8215/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are directed against the common order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.8215/2024 (8Trial Court9 for short), whereby I.A. No.III filed under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking appointment of a receiver, and I.A. Nos.IV and VI filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be dismissed. The appeals are preferred only against the orders on I.A. Nos.III and IV, no appeal is preferred against the order on I.A. No.VI. 2. Since both the appeals relate to the very same impugned order, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The plaintiffs instituted suit under Section 92 and 26 read with Order VII Rule 8 CPC in respect of Dodda Maavalli Bisilu Maramma Temple against defendant No.1- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 Trust, seeking removal of trustees, settlement of a scheme for administration of the trust and other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed i. I.A. No.III seeking appointment of a receiver / administrator to manage the affairs of the trust and its properties and ii. I.A. Nos.IV and VI seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from altering the nature of the temple and trust properties and from putting up any construction pending disposal of the suit. 4. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings, documents and objections filed by the defendants, held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of misappropriation or misuse of temple funds. The Trial Court also observed that the allegations were largely based on assumptions and that the defendants had produced documents such as accounts, receipts and records, indicating maintenance of the trust affairs. Consequently, the Trial Court answered the points relating - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in the negative and dismissed the said interlocutory applications. Aggrieved by the common order on I.A. Nos.III and IV, the present appeals are filed. 5. Learned senior counsel Sri M.R. Rajagopal appearing on behalf of Sri B.S. Raghu, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court has proceeded on an erroneous premise by treating the present suit as an ordinary suit for injunction, whereas the suit is one instituted under Section 92 of CPC, which is in the nature of representative action concerning a public trust. It is contended that, in such proceedings, the approach of the Court ought to be different, as the Court acts as a custodian of the public trust property, and therefore, great scrutiny is required to safeguard the interest of the temple and its properties. 6. Learned senior counsel further relies upon the decision rendered by this Court in MFA No.8514/2023, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 particularly paragraph No.28, to contend that in matters concerning a public trust, the Court must adopt a protective approach. It is further contended that the Trial Court has erroneously construed the proceedings under Section 92 CPC as if they were pure adversarial litigation between private parties, without appreciating the representative nature of the proceedings. 7. Learned senior counsel submits that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the seriousness of the allegation regarding misuse of temple funds and demolition of the existing temple structure and therefore, the impugned order warrants interference. 8. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri R.S. Ravi appearing on behalf of Sri B. Roopesha, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the plaintiffs have repeatedly initiated proceedings on the same allegation without producing any credible material. It is submitted that, even prior to the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 present appeal, an application seeking appointment of a receiver had been filed and rejected, which was carried in MFA No.5167/2023, and the said appeal was withdrawn, and therefore, the present attempt is nothing but a repetition of earlier proceedings on I.A No.III. 9. It is further contended that I.A. No.IV had already been the subject matter of challenge in MFA No.7999/2024 and in view of subsequent developments, the said appeal itself has become infructuous. Learned senior counsel also submits that order on I.A. No.VI passed by the Trial Court has not been challenged in the present proceedings and therefore, the appellants cannot seek interference with the impugned order. 10. It is further submitted that the allegations of misappropriation are wholly unsupported by documentary evidence, whereas, the defendants have placed on record the documents relating to accounts, audit report, bank statements and other materials demonstrating proper - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 administration of the trust. It is therefore contended that the Trial Court has rightly concluded that no prima facie case is made out and the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiffs. 11. In reply, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the earlier appeal MFA No.5167/2023 was not dismissed on merits but was withdrawn by filing a memo, reserving liberty to pursue appropriate remedies and therefore, the present application-I.A. No.III cannot be said to be barred by res judicata. 12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and perused the material on record. 13. The point that arises for consideration is: <Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A. Nos.III and IV filed by the plaintiffs?= - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 14. The Trial Court has specifically recorded that the allegations of misuse of funds and mismanagement of temple and trust are not supported by any concrete material. The documents relied by the plaintiffs do not prima facie establish any act of misappropriation or diversion of funds. On the other hand, the Trial Court has noted that the defendants have produced documents indicating maintenance of accounts, receipts relating to temple collections and records pertaining to the administration of the trust. The Trial Court has taken note of all these materials and has observed that the allegation of misappropriation cannot be presumed merely on the basis of submission. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case. 15. If a prima facie case is not established, the Court usually does not proceed to examine the other requirements. The Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar and Anr. Vs. Prahlad Singh and Ors1 (Dalpat Kumar) has held 1 (1992) 1 SCC 719 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 that 8Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial.9 It only means that the Court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried. Prima facie case means a case which appears to have merit on the face of record and requires full trial for final determination. In the absence of any material demonstrating immediate threat to the trust properties or misuse of funds, the extraordinary relief of appointment of a receiver cannot be granted. 16. Similarly, the prayer of temporary injunction restraining the construction or alteration of temple premises cannot be granted in the absence of a prima facie case. This Court finds that the Trial Court has exercised its discretion judicially and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting any interference. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 17. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that, in the event this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, certain conditions may be imposed on the defendants and they may be put on terms so as to safeguard the interest of the trust and temple properties. 18. This Court has considered the submission. However, since the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case and the balance of convenience does not lie in their favour, the question of imposing conditions on the defendants or putting them on terms would not arise. Imposition of such conditions would, in effect, amount to granting indirect relief, which the appellants have otherwise failed to establish in accordance with law. 19. It is also relevant to note that the Trial Court has taken into consideration the documents produced by the defendants relating to the accounts and administration of the trust and recorded a finding that the allegation of - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 misuse are not substantiated by any material on record. In the absence of any prima facie material demonstrating mismanagement or diversion of funds, there is no justification for this Court to place the defendants on terms at this interlocutory stage. However, it is needless to observe that the administration of the trust and the temple property shall remain subject to final adjudication of the suit and the parties are at liberty to place all relevant materials before the Trial Court during the course of trial. 20. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in MFA No.8514/2023, particularly paragraph No.28, to contend that in the proceedings instituted under Section 92 CPC, the Court acts as a custodian of a public trust and therefore, the approach of the Court while considering interlocutory application should be different from that in an ordinary suit. MFA No.8514/2023 was filed by the present appellants challenging the order passed in - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 proceedings under Section 92 of CPC, wherein the Court permitted the appellants to present the plaint. The observations made in paragraph No.28 of the said judgment were in the context of considering whether leave under Section 92 CPC ought to have been granted and cannot be construed as laying down any principle dispensing with the requirement of establishing the ingredients necessary for grant of interim relief. 21. In the present case, the Trial Court after examining the pleadings, documents placed on record has recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case of mismanagement or misuse of the trust property. The said finding is based on the appreciation of material before the Court. Even in a suit instituted under Section 92 CPC, an applicant seeking interim relief is required to satisfy the well-settled principle governing grant of such relief, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Therefore, the reliance placed on the observation made in paragraph - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15869 MFA No. 7165 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7164 of 2025 No.28 of MFA No.8514/2023 does not assist the appellants in the facts of the present case. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The miscellaneous first appeals are hereby dismissed. ii. The common order dated 07.07.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.III and IV in O.S. No.8215/2024 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in is hereby confirmed. iii. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the present appeals and does not influence the Trial Court while deciding the suit on its merits. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75