Sri O Manjunath vs Smt Rathnamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 7065 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:36344
                                                      MFA No. 6481 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6481 OF 2023 (CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI O MANJUNATH
                         S/O LATE OBAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

                   2.    SRI GOVARDHAN
                         S/O MUNISWAMY
                         AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

                         BOTH ARE R/A NO.22, MANJUNATH LAYOUT
                         KANAKANAGAR, J P NAGAR POST
                         BANGALORE-560078

                   3.    SRI K RAMASWAMY
                         S/O KRISHNAPPA
Digitally signed
by                       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY                   R/O GANIGARAPALYA, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
Location: High           THALAGHATTAPURA, BANGALORE-560062
Court of
Karnataka

                   4.    SMT SUGUNA
                         W/O BALAKRISHNA
                         AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
                         R/O YELACHENAHALLI
                         KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
                         JP NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560078
                                                                ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. NAIK N R, ADVOCATE)
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2023:KHC:36344
                                     MFA No. 6481 of 2023




AND:

1.   SMT RATHNAMMA
     W/O LATE NARASIMHAREDDY
     AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

2.   SRI N NAGARAJU
     S/O LATE NARASIMHAREDDY
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

3.   SRI N PANDU
     S/O LATE NARASIMHAREDDY
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

     ALL ARE R/A NO.1171
     8TH B CROSS, 18TH A MAIN ROAD
     2ND STAGE, J P NAGAR
     BENGALURU-560078
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO 3)

       THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.14.07.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.7562/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, (CCH-8),
DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W
SEC.151 OF CPC.

       THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    -3-
                                                     NC: 2023:KHC:36344
                                                 MFA No. 6481 of 2023




                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order

dated 14.07.2023 passed by the XI Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, whereby I.A.No.1 filed by the

plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of

CPC has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific

performance of contract dated 03.04.2004. He has also filed

I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of

CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants

from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property.

The trial Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed I.A.No.1 by

the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the

plaintiffs have filed this appeal.

4. As per the pleadings, the claim of the plaintiffs is

that the defendants have executed a Sale Agreement dated

03.04.2004 in respect of the suit schedule property for

consideration of amount of Rs.53 lakhs. As per the Sale

NC: 2023:KHC:36344 MFA No. 6481 of 2023

Agreement, the plaintiffs have to pay 50% of the consideration

amount within three months from the date of the agreement.

The trial Court, after considering the arguments of the parties

and material available on record, has given a finding that even

though there was an obligation on the part of the plaintiffs to

pay 50% of the sale consideration amount within three months

from the date of Agreement, they failed to fulfill their part of

obligation. As such it is clear that, the manner in which the

plaintiffs prosecuting the matter gives an inference that, they

are not having a prime facie case and balance of convenience is

not lies in their favour. Since their is no impediment to the

plaintiff to take shelter under Doctrine of Lis-pendens, this

court did not find any reason to hold that, the plaintiffs will be

put to irreparable loss and hardship if an order of temporary

injunction is not granted. As such, considering all probable

circumstances, no reason to grant the equitable relief of

temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore,

there is no error in the order passed by the trial Court. It is

made clear that if the defendants make any alienation of the

suit schedule property, the same is subject to the result of the

suit. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

NC: 2023:KHC:36344 MFA No. 6481 of 2023

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

TL