- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15928 MFA No. 5104 of 2023 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.5104 OF 2023 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. VANI NARAYANA S/O SRI S. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.41, 1ST CROSS, JCO COLONY, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560033. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BALARAJ A.C., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. S. SARASWATHI D/O LATE M.D. SADASHIVAN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.20, 2ND CROSS, HUTCHINS ROAD, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BENGALURU-560084. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI V.N. SHANKARE GOWDA, A/W SRI G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATES FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.26411/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, DISMISSING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15928 MFA No. 5104 of 2023 THIS APPEAL 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 plaintiff calling in question the order dated 01.07.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.26411/2022 on the file of the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property has been rejected. Brief facts: 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the respondent being the owner of the suit schedule property entered into an agreement of sale dated 23.03.2017 agreeing to sell the property for consideration of `4,05,00,000/-. It is contended that the part consideration was paid and the appellant was always ready and willing to perform her part - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15928 MFA No. 5104 of 2023 of the contract. Subsequently, dispute arose where third parties claimed right over the property in leading to multiple proceedings. The plaintiff asserts that despite readiness and willingness, defendants have failed to execute the sale deed and is attempting to alienate the property, necessitating filing of the suit for specific performance along with an application for temporary injunction. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has erred in holding that no prima facie case exists. It is contended that the issue relating to readiness and willingness and limitation cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage. The agreement of sale and receipt of consideration are not in dispute. The relief is sought only to prevent alienation and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15928 MFA No. 5104 of 2023 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the suit is filed after an inordinate delay of about 5 years. The appellant has not demonstrated any readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract, only a nominal advance amount is paid in comparison to the total sale consideration, no prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury is made out. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions 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?” 6. The Trial Court observed that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case and the suit is filed after a lapse of considerable time, raises issues of limitation and also holds that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant would - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15928 MFA No. 5104 of 2023 suffer hardship, if injunction is granted and dismissed the application for temporary injunction with costs. It is trite law that while considering an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and Rule 2, the Court is required to examine whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. In the present case, the agreement of sale is of the year 2017, whereas the suit is instituted in the year 2022. The delay of nearly 5 years assumes significance, particularly in a suit for specific performance where continuous readiness and willingness is a sine qua non. 7. The appellant contends that issues relating to readiness and limitations are matters of trial. Though the appellant contends, it cannot be said that the Court is precluded from examining the issues whether a prima facie case exists. For limited purpose of interim relief, the Court is entitled to assess whether the conduct of the plaintiff inspires confidence. The view taken by the Trial Court does not suffer from any perversity. It is also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15928 MFA No. 5104 of 2023 relevant to note that the present appeal is of the year 2023 and no interim order is operating as on date. Having regard to the nature of the order under challenge and the scope of interference under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, this Court does not find any perversity or arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court in rejecting the application for temporary injunction. At the same time, considering the apprehension expressed by the appellant regarding possible alienation of the suit schedule property, it is necessary to safeguard the interest of the appellant by resolving appropriate liberty. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to make an appropriate application before the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15928 MFA No. 5104 of 2023 Trial Court, if the appellant has a reasonable apprehension that the respondent is attempting to alienate or encumber the suit schedule property, in the event such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. iii. Any observation made by this Court or by the Trial Court is only limited for consideration of the application and shall not influence the Trial Court in considering the suit independently. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38