Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8795 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI M.RANGA RAO
S/O LATE M.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC: LAND LORD AND
TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
PRESENTLY R/AT MARUTHI NAGAR,
NALLORE ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S SRI VENTURES LAND
DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANY ACT 1956
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ST
NO. 82/1, 1 FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
PRAKASHNAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560010.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR/MANAGER
(AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE)
2. SRI. N.VENKATESH
S/O NARAYANA IYENGAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
THE DIRECTOR,
M/S. SRI VENTURES LAND
DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD,
Digitally signed
by THEJAS
KUMAR N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ST
NO. 82/1, 1 FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
PRAKASHNAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560010.
3. SMT. AMRUTHA VENKATESH
W/O N.VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
THE DIRECTOR,
M/S SRI VENTURES LAND
DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ST
NO. 82/1, 1 FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
PRAKASHNAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
ALSO, AT
THE PARTIES AT SL.NO.2 AND 3
ARE RESIDING AT NO. 115,
RD
3 MAIN ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560079.
4. SRI. V.VASUKISHAYANA
S/O N.VENKATACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
THE DIRECTOR,
THEN MANAGER OF
M/S SRI VENTURES LAND
DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ST
NO. 82/1, 1 FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
PRAKASHNAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560010.
ALSO, AT
NO. 57, POST OFFICE ROAD,
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
J.P.NAGAR POST, YELACHENAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 078.
5. SRI. M.J.CHANDRASHEKARA SETTY,
S/O M.L.JAGANNATH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
PRESETLY R/A B.H.ROAD, KADUR,
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT - 577548
6. SRI. M.R.SHANKAR
S/O M.L.RAMACHANDRA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/A B.H.ROAD, KADUR,
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT- 577548.
7. SRI. M.B.SHASHI
S/O M.L.BALAKRISHNA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/A K.M.ROAD, KADUR,
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT- 577548.
8. SRI. M.B.SATHISH KUMAR
S/O M.L.BALAKRISHNA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/A K.M ROAD, KADUR,
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT- 577548.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 07.01.2026, NOTICE TO R5 TO R8)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.01.2026, THIS
DAY, AN JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL/CAV JUDGMENT
Sri. M. Veerabhadraiah, counsel for the appellant and Sri.
Roopesha, counsel for respondents 1 to 4, appeared in person.
2. For convenience’s the parties shall be referred to as
per their status and ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of specific
performance on the following averments.
4. It is stated that Defendant Nos.5 to 8, being the
owners of the Schedule A property, entered into a registered
Joint Development Agreement on 20.05.2013, with a
subsequent supplementary agreement dated 05.11.2015 with
the first defendant - company represented by its Director and
executed a registered GPA dated 05.11.2015 in favour of the
first defendant - company to facilitate them to carry out the
development work without any problem. In terms of the
registered JDA, the first defendant - company shall get 36%
share in the developed area in the Schedule 'A' property.
5. The records maintained by the statutory authority
under the respective statute show that defendant No.1 is a
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956. Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the Directors of the first
defendant - company.
6. The first defendant - company represented by its
Director based on the JDA and supplementary agreement,
entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.12.2015 with the
plaintiff to sell the Suit Schedule 'B' property out of their 36%
share in the developed area in Suit Schedule 'A' property for a
valuable sale consideration amount of Rs.24,03,480/- and
received first part sale consideration amount of Rs.4,95,758/-
from the plaintiff through the mode mentioned therein. The
plaintiff, having agreed to purchase the suit Schedule 'B'
property, became a party to the agreement of sale. The
registered agreement of sale dated December 26, 2015,
stipulates certain terms and conditions that are binding on both
parties.
7. Upon the exchange of notices between the plaintiff
and the defendant No.1, and when the defendant No.1 refused
to execute the registered sale deed on technical grounds, the
plaintiff was left with no alternative in the preliminary stage.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
Hence, he filed suit for specific performance before the
Commercial Court, Chikamangaluru, in Commercial O.S.No.60
of 2023. The Commercial Court, in its order dated 11.07.2023,
returned the plaint directing the plaintiff to represent the same
before the jurisdictional Civil Court. It is stated that along with
the plaint, applications in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, was filed for the
grant of temporary injunction against defendants 1 to 4.
8. Thereafter, the plaintiff represented the plaint
before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur in O.S.No.143
of 2023. On service of notice to defendants 1 to 8, they
appeared and filed their written statement. However, defendant
Nos.5 to 8 did not contest I.A.Nos.1 and 2. But defendant
Nos.1 to 4 adopted averments of the written statement as
objections to I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and contested the applications.
The Trial Court, in its order dated 28.08.2025, dismissed the
applications. Under these circumstances, the appellant has filed
the above appeal on several grounds as set out in the
Memorandum of Appeal.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions. Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the
following decisions.
1.
DALPAT KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS PRALHAD SINGH AND
OTHERS (1992) 1 SCC 719.
2.
S. BRAMHANAND AND OTHERS VS K.R. MUTHUGOPAL
(DEAD) AND OTHERS (2005) 12 SCC 764.
3.
PANCHANAN DHARA AND OTHERS VS MONMATHA NATH
MAITY (DEAD) THROUGH LR’S AND OTHERS (2006) 5
SCC 340.
4.
ZENT MATPLAST PRIVATE LIMITED VS STATE OF
MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS (2009) 10 SCC 388.
5.
MAKERS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS
M. VISVESVARAYA INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT CENTRE (2012) 1 SCC 735.
6.
MARIA MARGARIDA SEQUEIRA FERNANDES AND OTHER
VS ERASMO JAC DE SEQUEIRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
(2012) 5 SCC 370
7.
PRASAR BHARATI VS BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET
IN INDIA AND OTHERS (2015) 6 SCC 614.
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with
care.
11. Is the Trial Court justified in rejecting the
applications?
Before addressing this point directly, we should first
briefly review the basics of a temporary injunction.
An injunction is a judicial proceeding whereby a party is
required to do, or to refrain from doing, any particular act. It is
a remedy in the form of an order of the Court addressed to the
particular person that either prohibits him from doing or
continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction), or
orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction).
Injunctions are of two kinds:
(i) Temporary and
(ii) Permanent.
A permanent injunction restrains a party forever from
doing the specified act and can be granted only on the merits
at the conclusion of the trial after hearing both parties to the
suit. On the other hand, a temporary or interim injunction
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and
can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until further
orders of the Court. It is regulated by the provisions of Order
XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may be granted
at any stage of the suit.
Before granting the temporary injunction, the following
considerations are required to be satisfied:
(i) There is a prima facie case in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant.
(ii) That irreparable injury is likely to be caused
to the plaintiff which cannot be
compensated for in terms of money.
(iii) That the balance of convenience lies in
favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant.
(iv) The conduct of the plaintiff should be fair
and honest.
12. Acknowledging the background, the factual data
present the following picture.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
13. The plaintiff initiated the present suit in 2023,
seeking the specific performance of a contract dated December
26, 2015. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 contend that time was the
essence of the contract and specifically assert that they did not
breach any of its terms. Furthermore, the Defendants maintain
that they lawfully forfeited the advance sale consideration
amount. They had issued a notice on September 27, 2022.
Finally, they contend that the principles of limitation bar the
Plaintiff's claim.
14. The plaintiff has filed two separate Interlocutory
Applications (IAs) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with
Section 151 of the CPC, seeking temporary injunctions to
restrain defendant Nos.1 to 4 from altering the nature or
putting up construction on the suit schedule 'B' property, and
further to restrain them from alienating, encumbering, or
creating any third-party interest in the said property pending
the final disposal of the suit. Notably, defendant Nos.1 to 4
advanced a unified position, adopting the same contentions (as
contended in the written statement) as their objections to the
applications. The Trial Court rejected the applications by taking
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
note of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience.
To be precise, the Trial Court, after evaluating the prima facie
evidence and the balance of convenience, denied the
applications. I concur; the refusal was both just and proper.
15. The plaintiff instituted the present suit in 2023,
seeking, inter alia , the specific performance and enforcement of
the contract dated December 26, 2015. Simultaneously, the
plaintiff moves two applications seeking an order of temporary
injunction to preserve the subject matter of the suit during the
pendency of the proceedings.
16. For an injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must
typically demonstrate a prima facie case, the balance of
convenience in his favour, and the likelihood of
suffering irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. An
eight-year delay makes it difficult to prove the urgency of
"irreparable injury". The plaintiff failed to exercise his right for
almost eight years, thereby unduly prejudicing the defendants
1 to 4. The plaintiff, by keeping quiet for eight years, is barred
by the doctrine of laches from seeking an immediate injunction.
The inordinate and unreasonable delay has caused
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
circumstances to change significantly over time, and a party
seeking urgent, immediate equitable relief (such as an
injunction) must approach the court within a reasonable time.
His long period of acquiescence invalidates his current claim for
immediate relief.
17. It is a well-settled principle of law that interim relief
can always be granted in aid of and as ancillary to the main
relief available to the party on final determination of his rights
in a suit or any other proceeding. Therefore, a Court
undoubtedly possesses the power to grant interim relief during
the pendency of the suit. Temporary injunctions are thus
injunctions issued during the pendency of proceedings.
18. The Trial Court rightly found that the plaintiff failed
to establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary
injunction, as the material on record did not demonstrate
sufficient grounds for immediate intervention, nor was the
balance of convenience established in the Plaintiff's favour.
19. It is noted that the issue of limitation is a
substantial question requiring full consideration and cannot be
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
conclusively decided at the interlocutory stage. Nevertheless,
the Court's decision to deny the injunction was well-founded, as
the plaintiff did not satisfy the foundational requirements for
temporary relief, particularly failing to make out a prima
facie case that warranted such an equitable intervention.
20. The power to grant or refuse a temporary injunction
rests on the sound exercise of discretion by the Court, which
must be based on established principles, including a prima facie
case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The grant
or refusal of a temporary injunction is a matter of judicial
discretion, and the Trial Court has exercised this discretion
judiciously and on sound legal principles, establishing a strong
prima facie case and balancing the conveniences; therefore, the
order cannot be set aside as it's not arbitrary or capricious. The
Trial Court arrived at a just conclusion, which warrants no
interference from this Court.
21. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on several
decisions, but I do not think the law is in doubt. Each decision
turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the
light of the decisions referred to supra.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
The appeal is dismissed.
Because of the dismissal of the appeal, all pending
interlocutory applications are disposed of.
SD/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8795 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI M.RANGA RAO
S/O LATE M.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC: LAND LORD AND
TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
PRESENTLY R/AT MARUTHI NAGAR,
NALLORE ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S SRI VENTURES LAND
DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANY ACT 1956
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ST
NO. 82/1, 1 FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
PRAKASHNAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560010.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR/MANAGER
(AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE)
2. SRI. N.VENKATESH
S/O NARAYANA IYENGAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
THE DIRECTOR,
M/S. SRI VENTURES LAND
DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD,
Digitally signed
by THEJAS
KUMAR N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ST
NO. 82/1, 1 FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
PRAKASHNAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560010.
3. SMT. AMRUTHA VENKATESH
W/O N.VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
THE DIRECTOR,
M/S SRI VENTURES LAND
DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ST
NO. 82/1, 1 FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
PRAKASHNAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
ALSO, AT
THE PARTIES AT SL.NO.2 AND 3
ARE RESIDING AT NO. 115,
RD
3 MAIN ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560079.
4. SRI. V.VASUKISHAYANA
S/O N.VENKATACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
THE DIRECTOR,
THEN MANAGER OF
M/S SRI VENTURES LAND
DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ST
NO. 82/1, 1 FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
PRAKASHNAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560010.
ALSO, AT
NO. 57, POST OFFICE ROAD,
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
J.P.NAGAR POST, YELACHENAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 078.
5. SRI. M.J.CHANDRASHEKARA SETTY,
S/O M.L.JAGANNATH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
PRESETLY R/A B.H.ROAD, KADUR,
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT - 577548
6. SRI. M.R.SHANKAR
S/O M.L.RAMACHANDRA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/A B.H.ROAD, KADUR,
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT- 577548.
7. SRI. M.B.SHASHI
S/O M.L.BALAKRISHNA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/A K.M.ROAD, KADUR,
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT- 577548.
8. SRI. M.B.SATHISH KUMAR
S/O M.L.BALAKRISHNA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/A K.M ROAD, KADUR,
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT- 577548.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 07.01.2026, NOTICE TO R5 TO R8)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.01.2026, THIS
DAY, AN JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL/CAV JUDGMENT
Sri. M. Veerabhadraiah, counsel for the appellant and Sri.
Roopesha, counsel for respondents 1 to 4, appeared in person.
2. For convenience’s the parties shall be referred to as
per their status and ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of specific
performance on the following averments.
4. It is stated that Defendant Nos.5 to 8, being the
owners of the Schedule A property, entered into a registered
Joint Development Agreement on 20.05.2013, with a
subsequent supplementary agreement dated 05.11.2015 with
the first defendant - company represented by its Director and
executed a registered GPA dated 05.11.2015 in favour of the
first defendant - company to facilitate them to carry out the
development work without any problem. In terms of the
registered JDA, the first defendant - company shall get 36%
share in the developed area in the Schedule 'A' property.
5. The records maintained by the statutory authority
under the respective statute show that defendant No.1 is a
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956. Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the Directors of the first
defendant - company.
6. The first defendant - company represented by its
Director based on the JDA and supplementary agreement,
entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.12.2015 with the
plaintiff to sell the Suit Schedule 'B' property out of their 36%
share in the developed area in Suit Schedule 'A' property for a
valuable sale consideration amount of Rs.24,03,480/- and
received first part sale consideration amount of Rs.4,95,758/-
from the plaintiff through the mode mentioned therein. The
plaintiff, having agreed to purchase the suit Schedule 'B'
property, became a party to the agreement of sale. The
registered agreement of sale dated December 26, 2015,
stipulates certain terms and conditions that are binding on both
parties.
7. Upon the exchange of notices between the plaintiff
and the defendant No.1, and when the defendant No.1 refused
to execute the registered sale deed on technical grounds, the
plaintiff was left with no alternative in the preliminary stage.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
Hence, he filed suit for specific performance before the
Commercial Court, Chikamangaluru, in Commercial O.S.No.60
of 2023. The Commercial Court, in its order dated 11.07.2023,
returned the plaint directing the plaintiff to represent the same
before the jurisdictional Civil Court. It is stated that along with
the plaint, applications in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, was filed for the
grant of temporary injunction against defendants 1 to 4.
8. Thereafter, the plaintiff represented the plaint
before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur in O.S.No.143
of 2023. On service of notice to defendants 1 to 8, they
appeared and filed their written statement. However, defendant
Nos.5 to 8 did not contest I.A.Nos.1 and 2. But defendant
Nos.1 to 4 adopted averments of the written statement as
objections to I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and contested the applications.
The Trial Court, in its order dated 28.08.2025, dismissed the
applications. Under these circumstances, the appellant has filed
the above appeal on several grounds as set out in the
Memorandum of Appeal.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions. Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the
following decisions.
1.
DALPAT KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS PRALHAD SINGH AND
OTHERS (1992) 1 SCC 719.
2.
S. BRAMHANAND AND OTHERS VS K.R. MUTHUGOPAL
(DEAD) AND OTHERS (2005) 12 SCC 764.
3.
PANCHANAN DHARA AND OTHERS VS MONMATHA NATH
MAITY (DEAD) THROUGH LR’S AND OTHERS (2006) 5
SCC 340.
4.
ZENT MATPLAST PRIVATE LIMITED VS STATE OF
MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS (2009) 10 SCC 388.
5.
MAKERS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS
M. VISVESVARAYA INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT CENTRE (2012) 1 SCC 735.
6.
MARIA MARGARIDA SEQUEIRA FERNANDES AND OTHER
VS ERASMO JAC DE SEQUEIRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
(2012) 5 SCC 370
7.
PRASAR BHARATI VS BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET
IN INDIA AND OTHERS (2015) 6 SCC 614.
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with
care.
11. Is the Trial Court justified in rejecting the
applications?
Before addressing this point directly, we should first
briefly review the basics of a temporary injunction.
An injunction is a judicial proceeding whereby a party is
required to do, or to refrain from doing, any particular act. It is
a remedy in the form of an order of the Court addressed to the
particular person that either prohibits him from doing or
continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction), or
orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction).
Injunctions are of two kinds:
(i) Temporary and
(ii) Permanent.
A permanent injunction restrains a party forever from
doing the specified act and can be granted only on the merits
at the conclusion of the trial after hearing both parties to the
suit. On the other hand, a temporary or interim injunction
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and
can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until further
orders of the Court. It is regulated by the provisions of Order
XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may be granted
at any stage of the suit.
Before granting the temporary injunction, the following
considerations are required to be satisfied:
(i) There is a prima facie case in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant.
(ii) That irreparable injury is likely to be caused
to the plaintiff which cannot be
compensated for in terms of money.
(iii) That the balance of convenience lies in
favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant.
(iv) The conduct of the plaintiff should be fair
and honest.
12. Acknowledging the background, the factual data
present the following picture.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
13. The plaintiff initiated the present suit in 2023,
seeking the specific performance of a contract dated December
26, 2015. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 contend that time was the
essence of the contract and specifically assert that they did not
breach any of its terms. Furthermore, the Defendants maintain
that they lawfully forfeited the advance sale consideration
amount. They had issued a notice on September 27, 2022.
Finally, they contend that the principles of limitation bar the
Plaintiff's claim.
14. The plaintiff has filed two separate Interlocutory
Applications (IAs) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with
Section 151 of the CPC, seeking temporary injunctions to
restrain defendant Nos.1 to 4 from altering the nature or
putting up construction on the suit schedule 'B' property, and
further to restrain them from alienating, encumbering, or
creating any third-party interest in the said property pending
the final disposal of the suit. Notably, defendant Nos.1 to 4
advanced a unified position, adopting the same contentions (as
contended in the written statement) as their objections to the
applications. The Trial Court rejected the applications by taking
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
note of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience.
To be precise, the Trial Court, after evaluating the prima facie
evidence and the balance of convenience, denied the
applications. I concur; the refusal was both just and proper.
15. The plaintiff instituted the present suit in 2023,
seeking, inter alia , the specific performance and enforcement of
the contract dated December 26, 2015. Simultaneously, the
plaintiff moves two applications seeking an order of temporary
injunction to preserve the subject matter of the suit during the
pendency of the proceedings.
16. For an injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must
typically demonstrate a prima facie case, the balance of
convenience in his favour, and the likelihood of
suffering irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. An
eight-year delay makes it difficult to prove the urgency of
"irreparable injury". The plaintiff failed to exercise his right for
almost eight years, thereby unduly prejudicing the defendants
1 to 4. The plaintiff, by keeping quiet for eight years, is barred
by the doctrine of laches from seeking an immediate injunction.
The inordinate and unreasonable delay has caused
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
circumstances to change significantly over time, and a party
seeking urgent, immediate equitable relief (such as an
injunction) must approach the court within a reasonable time.
His long period of acquiescence invalidates his current claim for
immediate relief.
17. It is a well-settled principle of law that interim relief
can always be granted in aid of and as ancillary to the main
relief available to the party on final determination of his rights
in a suit or any other proceeding. Therefore, a Court
undoubtedly possesses the power to grant interim relief during
the pendency of the suit. Temporary injunctions are thus
injunctions issued during the pendency of proceedings.
18. The Trial Court rightly found that the plaintiff failed
to establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary
injunction, as the material on record did not demonstrate
sufficient grounds for immediate intervention, nor was the
balance of convenience established in the Plaintiff's favour.
19. It is noted that the issue of limitation is a
substantial question requiring full consideration and cannot be
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
conclusively decided at the interlocutory stage. Nevertheless,
the Court's decision to deny the injunction was well-founded, as
the plaintiff did not satisfy the foundational requirements for
temporary relief, particularly failing to make out a prima
facie case that warranted such an equitable intervention.
20. The power to grant or refuse a temporary injunction
rests on the sound exercise of discretion by the Court, which
must be based on established principles, including a prima facie
case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The grant
or refusal of a temporary injunction is a matter of judicial
discretion, and the Trial Court has exercised this discretion
judiciously and on sound legal principles, establishing a strong
prima facie case and balancing the conveniences; therefore, the
order cannot be set aside as it's not arbitrary or capricious. The
Trial Court arrived at a just conclusion, which warrants no
interference from this Court.
21. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on several
decisions, but I do not think the law is in doubt. Each decision
turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the
light of the decisions referred to supra.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2035
MFA No. 8795 of 2025
HC-KAR
The appeal is dismissed.
Because of the dismissal of the appeal, all pending
interlocutory applications are disposed of.
SD/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2