- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21322 MFA No. 2740 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2740 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI HRUDAYARAJ, S/O LATE ARALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.139, 3RD CROSS, ARALAPPA LAYOUT, V. NAGENAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MUNIRAJU, S/O. M. RAMAIAH, AGED 61 YEARS. 2. CHANDRASHEKAR R S/O. M. RAMAIAH, AGED 59 YEARS 3. R. RAVIKUMAR, S/O. M. RAMAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS 4. R. JAGADISH, S/O. M. RAMAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21322 MFA No. 2740 of 2026 5. R. GOVINDRAJU, S/O. M. RAMAIAH, AGED 51 YEARS ALL RESIDING AT NO.58/4C, 3RD CROSS, CHEERANJIVI LAYOUT, NEAR VIDYANIKETAN SCHOOL, HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B R RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(R) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.2374/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 assailing the order dated 18.03.2026 passed on I.A. No. 1 in OS No. 2374/2025 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21322 MFA No. 2740 of 2026 XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendant- appellant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property until disposal of the suit. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The plaintiffs instituted suit for injunction claiming possession over the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, they filed I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, and in the absence of objections by the defendants, allowed the application and granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the plaintiffs have suppressed material facts relating to acquisition of lands in respect of Sy. No. 18/3. The acquisition proceedings were upheld by this Court in W.P 7547/2014. It is further contended that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21322 MFA No. 2740 of 2026 similar claims have been rejected in earlier proceedings by imposing cost. It is submitted that due to failure to file objections by the appellant, these facts were not brought to the notice of the Trial Court. Hence, an opportunity is sought to place the material on record. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that despite sufficient opportunity, the defendant- appellant failed to file objections or written statement. The Trial Court on basis of the available material, rightly found a prima facie case and granted injunction. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made 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?” 7. It is not in dispute that the defendant did not choose to file objections to I.A. No.1 before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, on basis of the material produced - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21322 MFA No. 2740 of 2026 by the plaintiffs, has recorded a finding regarding existence of a prima facie case, and granted injunction. However, the appellant has now placed reliance on certain documents relating to acquisition proceedings in respect of Sy. No.18/3, including the order passed in W.P. No.7547/2014. These documents were not placed before the Trial Court at the time of consideration of the application. 8. Having regard to the nature of dispute, and the material now sought to be relied upon, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would require that an opportunity be afforded to the defendant to place his objections and relevant material before the Trial Court. 9. At the same time, interim protection granted by the Trial Court cannot be vacated and therefore, it is appropriate to modify the order by directing both the parties to maintain status quo and remit the matter for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the point framed for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21322 MFA No. 2740 of 2026 consideration is answered and this Court pass the following : ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 18.03.2026 passed on I.A. No. 1 in OS No. 2374/2025 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is set aside and modified directing both the parties to maintain status quo as to possession. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of I.A.No.1. (iv) The defendant is permitted to file objections to the I.A. No.1 on or before 01.06.2026 and upon such filing, the Trial Court shall reconsider the application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21322 MFA No. 2740 of 2026 (v) The order of status quo shall operate till re- consideration of I.A. No. 1. (vi) It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29