- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7264 MFA No. 1675 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1675 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: MR. JAYA SHETTY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O LATE ANGARA SHETTY, R/AT PADUBETTU HOUSE, DAREGUDDE VILLAGE AND POST, MOODBIDRI TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. SHIVARAM J. SHETTY, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O JARAPPA SHETTY, R/AT 'ANANYA' PADUMARNAD VILLAGE, MOODBIDRI TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 104 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7264 MFA No. 1675 of 2024 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.H.R.Anantha Krishna Murthy, counsel for the appellant, and Sri.Dhananjay Kumar, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. For convenience’s the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking certain reliefs. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed by the plaintiff restraining the defendant from alienating, mortgaging, or creating any encumbrance over plaint 'A' schedule property or any portion thereof, till the disposal of the suit. The defendant resisted the application and sought dismissal of the application. The Trial Court rejected the application on 01.02.2024. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7264 MFA No. 1675 of 2024 4. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with utmost care. 5. Is the Trial Court justified in rejecting the application? 6. Before addressing this point directly, we should first briefly review the basics of a temporary injunction. An injunction is a judicial proceeding whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, any particular act. It is a remedy in the form of an order of the Court addressed to the particular person that either prohibits him from doing or continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction), or orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction). Injunctions are of two kinds: (i) Temporary and (ii) Permanent. A permanent injunction restrains a party forever from doing the specified act and can be granted only on the merits at the conclusion of the trial after hearing both parties to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7264 MFA No. 1675 of 2024 suit. On the other hand, a temporary or interim injunction restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until further orders of the Court. It is regulated by the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may be granted at any stage of the suit. Before granting the temporary injunction, the following considerations are required to be satisfied: (i) There is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (ii) That irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated for in terms of money. (iii) That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (iv) The conduct of the plaintiff should be fair and honest. 7. Acknowledging the background, the factual data present the following picture. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7264 MFA No. 1675 of 2024 8. The plaintiff contends that he and the defendant are distant relatives. They jointly purchased the A schedule property; for the purchase and development, he had paid the total amount of Rs.11,40,000/- to the defendant from time to time. The Plaintiff further contends that in 2015, he and the defendant entered into an agreement whereby the Defendant agreed to give a shop located on the ground floor and a flat on the first floor to him. Alleging that the defendant had failed to keep up the promise, he approached the Court in 2023. The plaintiff has filed an Interlocutory Application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2, read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, mortgaging, or creating any encumbrance over plaint 'A' schedule property or any portion thereof, till the disposal of the suit. The Trial Court rejected the application by taking note of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience. To be precise, the Trial Court, after evaluating the prima facie evidence and the balance of convenience, denied the application. I concur; the refusal was both just and proper. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7264 MFA No. 1675 of 2024 The plaintiff instituted the present suit in 2023, seeking, inter alia, the division of the plaint A schedule property along with a building in terms of the agreement dated 09.02.2015. Simultaneously, the plaintiff moves an application seeking an order of temporary injunction to preserve the subject matter of the suit during the pendency of the proceedings. 9. For an injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must typically demonstrate a prima facie case, the balance of convenience in his favour, and the likelihood of suffering irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. An eight-year delay makes it difficult to prove the urgency of "irreparable injury". The plaintiff failed to exercise his right for almost eight years, thereby unduly prejudicing the defendant. The plaintiff, by keeping quiet for eight years, is barred by the doctrine of laches from seeking an immediate injunction. The inordinate and unreasonable delay has caused circumstances to change significantly over time, and a party seeking urgent, immediate equitable relief (such as an injunction) must approach the court within a reasonable time. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7264 MFA No. 1675 of 2024 His long period of acquiescence invalidates his current claim for immediate relief. It is a well-settled principle of law that interim relief can always be granted in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or any other proceeding. Therefore, a Court undoubtedly possesses the power to grant interim relief during the pendency of the suit. Temporary injunctions are thus injunctions issued during the pendency of proceedings. The Trial Court rightly found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, as the material on record did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for immediate intervention, nor was the balance of convenience established in the plaintiff's favour. It is noted that the issue of limitation is a substantial question requiring full consideration and cannot be conclusively decided at the interlocutory stage. Nevertheless, the Court's decision to deny the injunction was well-founded, as the Plaintiff did not satisfy the foundational requirements for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7264 MFA No. 1675 of 2024 temporary relief, particularly failing to make out a prima facie case that warranted such an equitable intervention. The power to grant or refuse a temporary injunction rests on the sound exercise of discretion by the Court, which must be based on established principles, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is a matter of judicial discretion, and the Trial Court has exercised this discretion judiciously and on sound legal principles, establishing a strong prima facie case and balancing the conveniences; therefore, the order cannot be set aside as it's not arbitrary or capricious. The Trial Court arrived at a just conclusion, which warrants no interference from this Court. 10. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Because of the dismissal of the appeal, all pending interlocutory applications are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31