- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21041 MFA No. 7674 of 2025 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. 7674 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT VENKATAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2. SMT. S.V. LAKSHMIDEVI, D/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 3. SMT. S.V. BHAGYAMMA, D/O LATE. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 4. SRI VENKATACHALA S.V., S/O LATE VENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 5. SMT. POOJAMMA, W/O VENKATACHALA S.V., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 6. SRI ANIL KUMAR S.V., S/O VENKATACHALA S.V., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 7. SMT. JYOTHI M., W/O ANIL KUMAR S.V., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21041 MFA No. 7674 of 2025 8. SMT. KAMALA S.V. D/O VENKATACHALA S.V., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 9. SRI VENKATALAKSHMAIAH, S/O LATE VENKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 10. SMT. AMBIKA S.V., D/O VENKATALAKSHMALAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. 11. SRI HANUMANTHARAJA V., S/O LATE VENKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 12. MASTER. KRUTHIK H., S/O SRI HANUMANTHARAJA V., AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS. 13. MASTER. VIKRANTH H., S/O SRI HANUMANTHARAJA V., AGED ABOUT 03 YEARS. APPELLANTS NO.12 AND 13 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER SRI. HANUMANTHARAJA V - THE APPELLANT NO.11 HEREIN. 14. SMT. LALITHA S.V., W/O HANUMANTHARAJA V AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF: SEETHAKEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KAKOLU POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 089. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. J. R. MOHAN.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21041 MFA No. 7674 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT LATHA H W/O M.R. BASAVARAJA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.4/2, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE, NAGASHETTYHALLI, SANJAYANGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 094. 2. SRI MANUGOWDA C., S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O SEETHAKEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KAKOLU POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 089. 3. SRI SATHEESHA H., S/O LATE HANUMAIAH HOMBALE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.658, 9TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CUCKOO DELHI.,ADVOCATE C/R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 01.08.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 2 IN O.S.NO.75/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21041 MFA No. 7674 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed calling in question the order dated 01.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.75/2025 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (‘the trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking permanent injunction came to be rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have filed a suit in O.S.No.1076/2025 and an injunction order restraining interference with the possession has already been granted and confirmed. The appellants have already challenged the said order in M.A.No.26/2026, which is pending and therefore, a parallel injunction in another suit does not arise. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21041 MFA No. 7674 of 2025 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present suit instituted by the plaintiffs is for declaration and permanent injunction and the plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the suit schedule property and the trial Court has erroneously rejected the application for temporary injunction. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondents herein instituted a suit in O.S.No.1076/2025 seeking relief of injunction. Along with the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed and an ex-parte order of temporary injunction was granted on 25.09.2025, which was subsequently confirmed in the month of November, 2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present appellants have preferred M.A.No.26/2026, which is stated to be pending consideration and no interim order has been granted therein. 5. In view of the subsisting injunction order operating between the parties in respect of the very same subject - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21041 MFA No. 7674 of 2025 matter, the question of granting a further parallel injunction in O.S.No.75/2025 does not arise. 6. The trial Court, therefore, was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellants. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that any adjudication in the present appeal would be a futile exercise in light of the existing order passed in O.S.No.1076/2025 and keeping open the contentions of the parties, this Court pass the following: ORDER i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is disposed of. ii) The contentions raised by the appellants before the trial Court in O.S.No.75/2025 is kept open. iii) Any observations made in the course of consideration of this appeal shall not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21041 MFA No. 7674 of 2025 influence the Trial Court while deciding the suit on merits. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2