Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Smt. A.Y. Sathyavathi, Sri. Sagar Gowda, and Smt. Anushka, filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging an order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-30) in O.S. No.6934/2024. The trial court had allowed I.A. No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, granting an interim injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the respondents, Sri. Dhanush C and Sri. Ashish V. The appellants contended that the trial court erred in granting the injunction without considering their rights and that the respondents had no prima facie case. The respondents argued that they were in possession and the appellants had no legal right to interfere. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court's order was based on proper appreciation of the material on record and that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favor. The court noted that the appellants' remedy lay in filing a counterclaim in the suit, not in challenging the interim order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - The trial court granted an interim injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondents' possession of the suit property. The High Court held that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favor, and the trial court's order was based on proper appreciation of material on record. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Appeal against Interim Order - Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court, while hearing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, does not ordinarily interfere with the discretionary order of the trial court unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no such perversity in the impugned order. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an interim injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondents' possession of the suit property.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's order granting interim injunction. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC
- Prima Facie Case
- Balance of Convenience
- Irreparable Injury
- Temporary Injunction
- Interference with Possession
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (07) 73
MFA No. 4702 of 2025 (CPC)
Sri. Kashinath J.D (for appellants), Sri. Arun Shyam, Senior Counsel for Sri. Yogendra H (for respondents)
Smt. A.Y. Sathyavathi, Sri. Sagar Gowda, Smt. Anushka
Sri. Dhanush C, Sri. Ashish V
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against an interim injunction order in a property dispute.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the trial court's order granting interim injunction restraining them from interfering with the respondents' possession of the suit property.
Filing Reason
The appellants challenged the trial court's order dated 17.06.2025 allowing I.A. No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) allowed I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.6934/2024, granting an interim injunction against the appellants.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
Whether the appellants established a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the trial court erred in granting the injunction without considering their rights and that the respondents had no prima facie case.
Respondents argued that they were in possession of the suit property and the appellants had no legal right to interfere.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court's order granting interim injunction was based on proper appreciation of material on record. The appellants failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favor. The remedy for the appellants lies in filing a counterclaim in the suit, not in challenging the interim order.
Judgment Excerpts
This Misc.Fist appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the 29th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.30) in OS No.6934/2024 whereby, the trial Court allowed I.A. No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC granting an interim injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the peaceful and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the respondents.
Procedural History
The respondents filed O.S. No.6934/2024 before the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking permanent injunction. They filed I.A. No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction. The trial court allowed the I.A. on 17.06.2025. The appellants filed MFA No. 4702 of 2025 under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed on 22.07.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2, Order 43 Rule 1(r)
