- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16107 MFA No. 1225 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1225 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: B.H. NISCHITH SHETTY S/O LATE SRI. HIRIYANNA SHETTY .B AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.17/1, SRIDEVI NILAYA, NEAR NEW AGE PUBLIC SCHOOL MARTHALLI, BENGALURU-560037. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SWAROOP S., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI B.A. ANIL S/O LATE B.G. ASWATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.41, CHAITANYAYALA GROVE NEAR RAYAN SCHOOL, KUNDANHALLI, BENGALURU-560037. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4932/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16107 MFA No. 1225 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed against the order dated 02.02.2006 passed on I.A.1 in O.S.No. 4932/2025 by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (‘the trial Court’ for short) whereby the ex- parte order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff on 15.07.2025 has been vacated. 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court who had obtained an ex-parte order of temporary injunction on 15.07.2025. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 02.02.2026, the trial Court vacated the ex- parte injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed contending that the order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16107 MFA No. 1225 of 2026 appellant and in utter violation of principles of natural justice. 4. On perusal of the trial Court records, particularly the order sheet, it is evident that both sides were represented through counsel at the time of passing of the impugned order. The contention of the appellant that he was not heard is a matter which involve factual adjudication and the appropriate remedy for the appellant is to approach the trial Court itself by filing an appropriate application bringing such grievance to its notice. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the MFA stands disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to approach the trial Court by filing an appropriate application. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55