SRI B RAJENDRA PRASAD @ RAJENDRA REDDY vs SRI T K SADASHIVA REDDY @ MUNICHOWDA REDDY

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 446 OF 2023 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI B RAJENDRA PRASAD
@ RAJENDRA REDDY
S/O LATE BUDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.222, TOP BAKERY ROAD
TUBARAHALLI, VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
…APPELLANT








(BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI T K SADASHIVA REDDY
@ MUNICHOWDA REDDY
S/O LATE M KRISHNA REDDY

2. SRI K SRINIVASA REDDY @ MUNI REDDY
S/O LATE M KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/AT HEBBAGODI VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099.

3. SRI CHETHAN REDDY S
S/O LATE T K SAMPANGI REDDY


Digitally

signed by
VINUTHA M
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



@ SAMPAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
163, TOP BAKERY ROAD
BEHIND TOP BAKERY
THUBARAHALLI (VILLAGE)
RAMAGONDANAHALLI (POST)
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 560 066.

4. SRI PRABHAKAR REDDY
S/O D SUBBARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

5. SMT N ROOPA
W/O N MOHAN REDDY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.450 2ND CROSS
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 038.

6. SRI T SUDHAKAR REDDY
S/O D SUBBARAMI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.6, RAMALAPET COLONY
HYDERABAD - 560 073.

7. SMT K ANANTHAMMA
W/O LATE M R MUNI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NO.19, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
DODDANEKUNDI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
MARATHAHALLI POST
BENGALURU - 560 037.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023




SRI KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE SRI MUNI REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

SRI. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
S/O. LATE KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
NO.29/1, 2ND CROSS, ANAND NAGAR
MARAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 037.

9. SRI N A MUNI REDDY
S/O ABBAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
DODDANEKUNDI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 037.

10. SRI M YESHWANTH SHENOY
S/O LATE SRI VISHWANATH SHENOY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NO.43, 2ND CROSS
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 079.

11.
SRI S H KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
SIDDAPURA VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 066.

12. SRI LAKSHMAN REDDY
S/O LATE S L RAMASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS


8.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



SORAHUNASE VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 087.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.V. MALLA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 TO C/R6
NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 AND R7 TO 12 IS D/W,
V/O DATED 15.10.2026)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DT.28.11.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6006/2021 ON
THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, (CCH-12), BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging
the order dated 28.11.2022 passed on IA.No.1 filed under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in
OS.No.6006/2021 by the XVI Additional City Civil and

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



Sessions Judge, (CCH - 12), Bengaluru. The respondents
are the defendants before the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6
has appeared, notice to other respondents has not been
ordered, and they have not been taken either by the
learned counsel for the appellant, as he contends that they
may not be necessary in the present appeal.
3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred
to as the plaintiff and the defendants for the sake of
brevity.
4. Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for
the relief of declaration and to declare the plaintiff to be
the owner of the suit schedule property and for other
declaratory relief as sought for in the plaint and also for a
direction to defendant Nos. 4 to 12 to quit and deliver
vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the
plaintiff and for consequential reliefs. Along with the plaint,
an application came to be filed in IA.No.1 under Order

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking
an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant
Nos.4 to 12 from alienating or creating any third party
rights over the suit schedule property till disposal of the
suit.
5. Upon appearance, the defendants have filed
written statement and objections to the application. The
defendant Nos.4, 5, 6, 11 and 12 have adopted the written
statement as objections to the IA. The application was
vehemently contested and the trial Court upon
consideration of the application, did not find a favour with
the plaintiff for the grant of an order of temporary
injunction on the ground that the plaintiff did not make out
a prima facie case, neither the balance of convenience nor
the irreparable injury and hardship tilt in favour of the
plaintiff and accordingly rejected the application.
Aggrieved by which, the appellant/plaintiff is before this
Court challenging the same.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



6. It is the vehement contention of learned
counsel Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj appearing for the
appellant/plaintiff that the impugned order passed by the
learned trial judge is perverse, illegal, arbitrary and the
same is not sustainable in law as it is contrary to the
materials placed on record. The trial Court has
mechanically passed an order without applying its judicial
mind. Hence, the impugned order requires to be set aside.
7. It is the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the plaintiff that the order of conferment of
occupancy rights in favour of the mother of the plaintiff, is
not disputed by either of the parties, no document is
forthcoming on record by the defendants to establish that
the order was assailed or challenged or set aside in any
Court of law. This aspect of the matter has been
conveniently ignored by the trial Court, which by itself is a
prima facie case made out by the plaintiff going for trial.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



8. It is further contended by the learned counsel
for the plaintiff that the conferment of occupancy right and
subsequent intestate succession is the right that is vested
and claimed by the plaintiff, who is none other than the
son of Smt.Kenchamma who was conferred occupancy
rights. Hence, learned counsel contends that the prima
facie case is made out by the plaintiff for grant of
temporary injunction with regard to the suit schedule
properties, as any order passed would affect the rights of
the plaintiff, and there was a clear conferment of
occupancy rights in the name of the mother of the
plaintiff, and it is also contended that the vendors do not
have any substantial right or they cannot further create
any third party rights by way of any right already accrued
to them, which is a subject matter of challenge in the suit.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further
contends that the trial Court has not taken into
consideration these relevant crucial aspects and has

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



mechanically passed an order without taking into
consideration the conferment of occupancy rights, the
intestate succession of the plaintiff from Smt.Kenchamma
and having a right over the suit schedule property, and
that he has challenged the subsequent sale deeds and gift
deeds executed in favour of the defendants. Under the
circumstances, if an alienation is made, it would cause
irreparable injury and hardship to the plaintiff. On these
grounds, he seeks to allow the appeal and consequently
set aside the impugned order.
10. Per contra, Sri.B.V.Malla Reddy learned counsel
for the respondent Nos.4 to 6 vehemently contends that
there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order
passed by the trial Court warranting interference at the
hands of this Court. Learned counsel vehemently contends
that the suit itself primarily is not maintainable, and the
same is required to be dismissed on the ground of it being
barred by the law of limitation. It is also contended by the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



learned counsel that the case made out by the plaintiff is
with regard to Survey No.68 of Thubarahalli village to an
extent of 2 acres 30 guntas as claimed in the prayer of the
suit.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6
contends that initially in survey No. 68 of Thubarahalli
village, the total extent of land was 5 acres 17 guntas. The
2 acres 30 guntas claimed by the plaintiff in the suit
pertains to the land belonging to one Patel Muniswamaiah
@ Patel Muniswamappa, who had initially acquired the
property to an extent of 3 acres 17 guntas in the year
24.04.1944 by way of a registered sale deed. It is further
contended that the remaining 2 acres out of the 5 acres 17
guntas was standing in the name of one Neelakanta Rao,
which is not pertaining to the suit schedule property
claimed by the plaintiff. Out of the 3 acres 17 guntas,
which is claimed by the plaintiff, 1 acre 16 guntas was
given by way of a registered gift deed on 20.06.1977 to

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



M.Krishna Reddy and another 2 acres by way of a decree
made under a will dated 19.12.1983. Subsequently, the
property was again alienated to an extent of 20 guntas
and 17 guntas to the defendant Nos.11 and 12 under the
said deed dated 17.11.1999 and 03.04.1999.
Subsequently 17 guntas alienated to defendant No.5 under
a registered sale deed dated 03.03.2003 and 20 guntas
under a registered sale deed dated 03.04.1999 in favour
of the father of defendant No.5.
12. Therefore, learned counsel vehemently
contends that the suit claim so made to an extent of 2
acres 30 guntas does not pertain to defendant Nos.4 to 6
and they are nowhere concerned with the suit schedule
property of the defendants are totally different and they
are unnecessarily arrayed as parties to the suit
proceedings. The same is already narrated in detail in the
written statement filed by the defendants. So also the trial
Court has considered all these aspects with regard to the

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



defendant No.5's statement which was adopted by the
other defendants.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6
also contends that in pursuance to the claim so made with
regard to the occupancy rights, several transactions have
been entered into in pursuance of the fact that several
suits have been filed by Smt. Kenchamma, the mother of
the plaintiff and her brothers and sisters, with regard to
the very same property pertaining to Survey No.68. The
suits have been dismissed. The RFA proceedings have
been filed, which have also come to a culmination by
rejection, and therefore the plaintiff, or the mother, has
never succeeded in any of the suit proceedings which have
culminated into a dismissal and an adverse order is passed
against the said Kenchamma in several proceedings
pending, which were filed before the Court. It is also
contended by the learned counsel that in the coordinate
suits filed by the brother of the appellant/plaintiff, no

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



doubt the defendants herein were made parties in the suit
and subsequently in the RFA proceedings, they were taken
out and removed from the array of parties, as no relief
was claimed against them.
14. It is also contended that the plaintiff himself
filed a suit in OS No.5083/2005 against M. Krishna Reddy,
father of defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, and others, for relief of
declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the
very same Survey No.68 of Thubarahalli Village. There was
no mention of the fact of the mother of the plaintiff having
obtained the property by way of occupancy rights or grant
of occupancy rights. The said suit filed by the plaintiff
came to be dismissed on 05.11.2012 and the same has
attained finality. Learned counsel further contends that
this being the facts of the case, which was narrated by the
defendants in the written statement and also pleaded
before the trial Court, all these aspects have been

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



considered by the trial Court in detail in the judgment
rendered by it.
15. It is further contended that the trial Court has
taken into consideration all these aspects of the suits, the
regular first appeals, and other proceedings, and also the
sale deeds standing in the names of the defendant Nos.4
to 6 and the subsequent revenue entries and municipal
entries and extracts in the name of the defendants,
consequently did not find sufficient force and contention in
the arguments advanced by the plaintiff for grant of an
order of temporary injunction, as no prima facie case was
made out and has rightly rejected the application, which
does not call for interference at the hands of this Court as
the same is not perverse and arbitrary or illegal.
Moreover, it is also contended that nothing is placed on
record to show that the plaintiff has succeeded with regard
to the grant of occupancy rights or having succeeded in
any Court with regard to the very same survey number for

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



which the plaintiff has filed the suit herein. Hence, he
contends that when the suit itself is not maintainable, the
question of granting an interim injunction, which is an
ancillary relief, is not sustainable and cannot be granted
which is rightly appreciated by the trial Court. Hence, he
seeks rejection of the appeal.
16. I have heard learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff and learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants.
17. The point that arises for consideration before
this Court is:
"Whether the impugned order passed by
the learned trial Judge calls for interference. If
so, what order?"

18. There is no dispute to the fact that the
defendants are now claiming right over the suit schedule
property by way of registered sale deeds, and the khata
and other documents, conversion orders, building licenses,

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



Katha extracts, katha certificate, sanction plan,
commencement certificate, occupancy certificate, tax
payable receipts are all standing in the name of the
defendants. It is also not in dispute that suit is filed for
declaration of ownership as well as possession from the
defendants. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not in possession
and seeks possession from the defendants and to declare
his ownership over the suit schedule property.
19. There are multiple suits and multiple litigations
which have gone through between the plaintiff and the
defendants, the mother of the plaintiff, as well as the
defendants and the predecessors of the defendants, which
are matters of record which are extracted by the trial
Court in its order. The suit filed by the plaintiff with regard
to bare injunction has been dismissed with regard to the
very same survey number. The suit filed by the mother of
the plaintiff has also been rejected. The regular first
appeal filed by the mother of the plaintiff has also come to

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



a finality, so also the suit filed by the plaintiff for bare
injunction has attended finality. All these are taken into
consideration by the learned trial Judge by referring the
suit numbers and the regular first appeal numbers and the
regular appeal numbers in its impugned order and the trial
Court has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not
made out of the prima facie case much less the other two
essential requirements of balance of convenience and
irreparable injury and hardship and consequently has
come to a conclusion that not having made out prima facie
case and accordingly, dismissed the application for grant
of temporary injunction.
20. It is also the pleadings of the defendants that
the properties of the defendants are not coming in the suit
schedule property and unnecessarily the defendants are
arrayed as parties to the suit. The trial Court has also
come to a conclusion that all these matters of trial would
have to be adjudicated during the course of trial.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



21. While considering an application for temporary
injunction filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 of CPC, the three essential requirements are
prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable
injury and hardship that would be caused more to which of
the parties. In the present case on hand, the plaintiff who
has come before the Court would have to place sufficient
material before the Court to show that he has made out
prima facie case for the grant of an order of temporary
injunction. Apart from showing a prima facie case, he will
have to also establish the balance of convenience tilting in
his favour and also irreparable injury and hardship would
be caused more to the plaintiff than to the defendants in
case of rejection.
22. The trial Court is required to consider these
three essential requirements rather than conducting mini
trial. Of course, the trial Court is at liberty to look into the
other aspects of pleadings relied on by the defendants

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



with regard to previous litigations and also with regard to
the maintainability and sustainability of the suit and the
prayer sought for in the application, and also the trial
Court is required to see as to the time and duration of the
litigation and the period during which the suit is filed and
also the application filed for grant of injunction. If there is
any delay, that would also be a factor for consideration of
the grant of order of temporary injunction.
23. Apparently, it is seen that the land tribunal
order is of the year 1988 which is allegedly claimed by the
plaintiff that his mother was granted occupancy rights.
Though that is not agreed to by the learned trial judge, it
is vehemently opposed to by the defendants with regard to
the same being in subsistence or having succeeded and
the mother of the plaintiff having filed a suit and the
plaintiff having filed an earlier suit having not fetched any
favourable order to the plaintiff would not be of any help
to the plaintiff. Nevertheless, be that as it may in the

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



present case on hand, the plaintiff has not made out prima
facie case for grant of an order of temporary injunction as
several litigations have transpired between the plaintiff
and the defendants, so also the mother of the plaintiff and
the defendants, the brother and sister of the plaintiffs and
the defendants, which has ended up in the rejection and
dismissal of the suits and the appeals. All these aspects
have been taken into consideration by the trial Court.
Therefore, when prima facie case is not made out by the
plaintiff, the question of going into balance of convenience
and irreparable injury would not arise as the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kashi Math Samsthan and another vs.
Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and another reported
in (2010) 1 SCC 689 , which reads as under :
" 16. It is well settled that in order to obtain an
order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of
such injunction has to prove that he has made out a
prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of
convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer
irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not
granted. But it is equally well settled that when a

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial,
question of considering the balance of convenience
or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned
would not be material at all, that is to say, if that
party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it
is not open to the court to grant injunction in his
favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of
convenience being in his favour and would suffer
irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is
granted. Therefore, keeping this principle in mind, let
us now see whether the appellant has been able to
prove prima facie case to get an order of injunction
during the pendency of the two appeals in the High
Court."

24. So also the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Mandali Ranganna and others V/s Sri.
1
T.Ramachandra and others also would stand to benefit
the defendants rather than the plaintiff.

1

( 2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 1

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



25. It is also relevant to mention the case of
2
Wander Ltd. and another V/s. Antox India P. Ltd
whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at paragraph
No.14 as under:

"14. The appeals before the Division Bench were
against the exercise of discretion by the Single
Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will
not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the
court of first instance and substitute its own
discretion except where the discretion has been
shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or
capriciously or perversely or where the court had
ignored the settled principles of law regulating
grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An
appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be
an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not
reassess the material and seek to reach a
conclusion different from the one reached by the
court below if the one reached by that court was
reasonably possible on the material. The appellate
court would normally not be justified in interfering
with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely
on the ground that if it had considered the matter
at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary
conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by
the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner
the fact that the appellate court would have taken
a different view may not justify interference with
the trial court's exercise of discretion. After
referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in

2

1990 SUPP SCC 727

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph
[(1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156] : (SCR
721)
“... These principles are well established, but as
has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles
Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130] ‘...the
law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an
order made by a judge below in the exercise of his
discretion is well established, and any difficulty
that arises is due only to the application of well
settled principles in an individual case’.”
The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to
this principle."

26. In the case of Ramakant Ambalal Chokshi
3
V/s Harish Ambalal Choksi whereby the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held at paragraph No.34 as under:
"34. The burden is on the plaintiff, by
evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise, to
prove that there is “a prima facie case” in his
favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The
existence of the prima facie right and infraction of
the enjoyment of his property or the right is a
condition precedent for the grant of temporary
injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused

3

2024 INSC 913

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



with prima facie title which has to be established
on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a
substantial question raised, bona fide, which
needs investigation and a decision on merits.
Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by
itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The
Court further has to satisfy that non-interference
by the court would result in “irreparable injury” to
the party seeking relief and that there is no other
remedy available to the party except one to grant
injunction and he needs protection from the
consequences of apprehended injury or
dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does
not mean that there must be no physical
possibility of repairing the injury, but means only
that the injury must be a material one, namely
one that cannot be adequately compensated by
way of damages. The third condition also is that
“the balance of convenience” must be in favour of
granting injunction. The Court while granting or
refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound
judicial discretion to find the amount of
substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be
caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused
and compare it with that which is likely to be
caused to the other side if the injunction is
granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or
probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court
considers that pending the suit, the subject
matter should be maintained in status quo, an
injunction would be issued. Thus, the Court has to
exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or
refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023



the suit. (See: Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh
reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719.)"

27. Under the circumstances, I do not find any
perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER

1) The appeal is dismissed.

2) It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of
the matter.

3) The observations made by this Court
herein are solely for the purpose of
deciding the application filed for
temporary injunction filed under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section
151 of CPC.

- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59060
MFA No. 446 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010029732023




4) All contentions of the parties are kept
open.

5) Ordered accordingly.


Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE

RCK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24