Karnataka High Court
Smt Nethravathi vs V/S Sri K Babu, S/O Konappa on 11 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25781
MFA No. 2614 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2614 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT NETHRAVATHI V S
D/O. LATE SANNEGOWDA,
W/O. SRI SURESH.H.G.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.108, 9TH CROSS,
BAIRAVESHWARA NAGARA,
NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072.
REP. BY HER G.P.A. HOLDER
SRI SURESH.H.G., SON OF LATE GOOLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.2, 6TH MAIN,
3RD CROSS, LAGGERE, PARVATHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 058.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by ANJALI M (BY SRI. SHANKAR G., ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka AND:
1. SRI K BABU, S/O KONAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.72, SRI SAI NILAYA
ANJANADRI LAYOUT, BABUSAB PALYA,
KALYANAAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K MURTHY., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25781
MFA No. 2614 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.22.03.2025 PASSED ON IA
NO.1/2024 IN O.S.NO.4809/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
(CCH-45), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2
R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant has filed this appeal seeking to set
aside the impugned order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the
XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City
(CCH-45) in O.S.No.4809/2024, wherein the application
filed by the appellant/plaintiff in the shape of I.A.No.1 filed
under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the
CPC was discussed, seeking an ad interim order of stay,
staying the further proceedings pursuant to the judgment
and decree dated 09.03.2022 passed by the LXIV Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-65) in
OS.No.2309/2020 till disposal of the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:25781
HC-KAR
2. The learned trial Court, considering I.A.No.1,
dismissed the same disbelieving the possession of the
plaintiff. It is observed by the learned trial Court that, the
plaintiff is claiming his right based on agreement of sale
dated 12.05.1983.
3. The documents produced by the defendant
establish that, his grandfather, namely Mylari @
M.Mylarappa, had gifted the suit property under the
registered gift deed dated 25.03.2013.
4. Admittedly, the judgments in
O.S.No.5501/2013 and O.S.No.2309/2020 were decreed in
favour of the defendant. The plaintiff has challenged these
judgments and decrees. It is further observed that, the
relief sought by the plaintiff to stay the further
proceedings pursuant of the judgment and decree dated
09.03.2022, the Court while exercising original jurisdiction
cannot stay the judgment and decree that to which was
passed in the year 2022.
NC: 2025:KHC:25781
HC-KAR
5. It is further observed that, since the plaintiff
seeks a stay of further proceedings in respect of a suit
already decided, Section 10 of the CPC does not apply to
the case on hand. So also by observing with regard to the
essential components for grant of temporary injunction,
has dismissed the application.
6. Strangely enough the appellant has filed an
application in the shape of I.A.No.1 under order 39 Rule 1
and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking an ad
interim order of stay, seeking of further proceedings
pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2022
passed by the LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru in O.S.No.2309/2020.
7. The provisions of order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read
with Section 151 of CPC reads as under;
"Order 39, Rule 1:
• This rule allows a court to grant a temporary
injunction in several situations, including
when:
NC: 2025:KHC:25781
HC-KAR
o The property in dispute is in danger of
being wasted, damaged, or alienated by
any party to the suit.
o The defendant threatens to dispose of or
remove the property in dispute, thus
causing injury to the plaintiff.
• The court can issue an order to restrain such
actions or make any other necessary order to
prevent the waste, damage, alienation, or
disposal of the property.
Order 39, Rule 2:
• This rule specifically deals with injunctions to
restrain the repetition or continuance of a breach
of contract or other injury.
• If a plaintiff is seeking to prevent the
defendant from breaching a contract or
committing another kind of injury, they can apply
for a temporary injunction under this rule.
• The injunction can be for restraining the
specific breach or any other injury of a similar
kind arising from the same contract or relating to
the same property or right."
8. In view of the strict mandate of order 39 Rule 1
and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, there is no scope to
seek the relief of staying the further proceedings by filing
I.A under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in
O.S.No.2309/2020 and such prayer for temporary
injunction cannot be granted. The relief sought by the
NC: 2025:KHC:25781
HC-KAR
plaintiff/appellant is misconceived. However, the liberty is
given to the appellant to move an appropriate application
seeking appropriate relief. Rightly the office has raised
objections with regard to the maintainability of the appeal.
As relief itself is not at all tenable under order 43 of the
CPC, I do not find any merits in this appeal to hold that, it
is maintainable.
9. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However,
liberty is given to the plaintiff/appellant to move
appropriate application before the trial Court.
10. The trial Court is requested to receive the
applications filed by the appellant/plaintiff and decide the
same on merits.
11. No orders as to cost.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
TIN
