- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15547 MFA No. 1910 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1910 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHETHAN .A S/O. ADI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, H.NO.50, FLAT NO.102, 4TH MAIN ROAD, SUNCITY LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560078. 2. SRI ADI REDDY, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.132/E, 2ND CROSS, I MAIN, SHANTINIKETHAN LAYOUT, ARAKERE, B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560076. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI B. VIJAY SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAKSHITHA W/O CHETHAN .A AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 2. MASTER MIHAN REDDY, S/O CHETHAN .A AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.76, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15547 MFA No. 1910 of 2026 J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 076. THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN, NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER, i.e., SMT. RAKSHITHA, i.e., THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V AND VI IN O.S.NO.1090/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH- 14). 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 defendants calling in question the order dated 16.02.2026 passed on I.A. Nos.V and VI in O.S. No.1090/2026 on the file of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby I.A.Nos.V and VI filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC came to be allowed granting temporary injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating, encumbering or creating any charge on 2/3rd share of the suit schedule - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15547 MFA No. 1910 of 2026 property, and further directing deposit of 2/3rd of the rental income. 2. The plaintiffs, claiming 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property, instituted a suit seeking protection of their alleged share and consequential reliefs. Pending the suit, applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC were filed seeking interim injunction against alienation and a direction to deposit the rental income. 3. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, granted an ex parte injunction and directed deposit of rent, while issuing notice to the respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the relief granted by the Trial Court is contrary to the nature of the suit and amounts to granting mandatory relief at an interim stage. The Trial Court failed to consider - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15547 MFA No. 1910 of 2026 the question of jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit, the order directing deposit of rent is unsustainable against the co-owner and is inconsistent with the pleadings. It is submitted that the impugned order is passed ex parte without proper consideration of the material on record. 6. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the Trial Court has passed an ex parte order granting temporary injunction and directing to deposit the rental income. However, it is not in dispute that the appellants have approached this Court without filing objections or seeking vacating of the interim order before the Trial Court. 7. The law is well settled that the Appellate Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with discretionary orders of temporary injunction, particularly when the aggrieved party has not exhausted the remedy available before the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15547 MFA No. 1910 of 2026 8. In the present case, the appellants having approached this Court prematurely, without availing the remedy or filing objections and seeking appropriate relief before the Trial Court. This Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out to epntertain the appeal at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However liberty is reserved to the appellants to file objections and an appropriate application before the Trial Court seeking vacating or modification of the interim order, in accordance with law. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36