Karnataka High Court
Smt. Tanushree vs Smt. Basamma on 17 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120
MFA No. 200184 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200184 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. TANUSHREE
W/O SHARANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHANTNALLI,
TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 115.
2. SMT. HANAMAVVA
W/O SHARANAPPA KADAKAL,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHANTNALLI,
TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI,
Digitally signed DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 115.
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI 3. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI
Location: HIGH W/O HONNAPPA PATIL,
COURT OF AGE: 34 YEARS,
KARNATAKA OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHANTNALLI,
TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 115.
4. SMT. BASAMMA
W/O HANAMANTRAYA PATIL,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHANTNALLI,
TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 115.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120
MFA No. 200184 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. SMT. BHIMAVVA
W/O MALLIKARJUN DODAMANI,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHANTNALLI,
TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 115.
6. SMT. MANJAMMA
W/O SAHEBGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHANTNALLI,
TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 115.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. BASAMMA
W/O SHARANAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ALAGUR,
TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 118.
2. BUSHETTY @ BASAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 71 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ALAGUR,
TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 118.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
4. THE SUB-REGISTER,
SINDAGI TALUKA,
SINDAGI - 586 128.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120
MFA No. 200184 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. THE TAHASILDAR,
DEVAR HIPPARAGI,
TQ: DEVAR HIPPARAGI - 586 115.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NARENDRA M. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI MAQBOOL AHMED, A.G.A. FOR R3 TO R4;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43(1)(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2024
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SINDAGI IN
O.S.NO.8/2022 ON IA NO.11 AND TO DISMISS THE IA NO.11 FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi in O.S.no.8/2022 on IA no.XI,
this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, learned counsel for
appellants submitted that appeal was by defendants no.2 to 7
in suit filed by respondent no.1, for partition and separate
possession of his half share in suit property etc. It was
submitted plaintiff had earlier filed I.A.no.I under Order 39
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120
HC-KAR
Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for temporary
injunction. On opposition, said application was rejected by Trial
Court by order dated 08.12.2022. Despite rejection of earlier
application, I.A.no.XI was filed under very same provision, once
again for temporary injunction. It was submitted, application
would not be maintainable. Despite said contention having
being urged, Trial Court passed impugned order. It was further
submitted grounds for opposing application by defendants
would be same as urged against I.A.no.I. On said ground also
impugned order would call for interference. It was lastly
submitted appellant was purchaser of suit property after
rejection of earlier application for temporary injunction and was
a bonafide purchaser. Therefore, passing of order of temporary
injunction against appellant was contrary to law. On said
grounds sought for allowing of appeal.
3. Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent no.1/plaintiff and learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondents no.3 to 5 opposed appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order
and material placed along with memorandum of appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120
HC-KAR
5. This appeal is against discretionary order passed by
Trial Court under provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code
of Civil Procedure. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Mohd.Mehtab Khan and others vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim
Khan and others1 has held scope for interference against
discretionary order passed by Trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1
and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure would be extremely limited
and even if view taken by Trial Court were one of possible
views, there could be no interference unless order suffered
from perversity. First ground urged is application is filed under
same provision. Said such contention would be too overbroad
to hold water. Merely on ground that application is filed under
same provision would not be a bar for Trial Court to entertain
application if relief sought is different. Prayer sought in IA no.I
was for temporary injunction against alienation, changing of
mutation entries etc., whereas in present, plaintiff is seeking an
order of temporary injunction against interference with
possession.
(2013) 9 SCC 221
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120
HC-KAR
6. Perusal of order dated 08.12.2022, rejecting
I.A.no.I would not reveal any finding about plaintiff not being in
possession. In affidavit filed in support of present application
(IA No.XI), it is stated that on filing of suit on 20.01.2022,
I.A.no.I was filed as plaintiff was apprehending alienation of
suit property by defendant no.1, Court granting ex-parte order
of temporary injunction on 27.01.2022 but later dismissed
application on 08.12.2022. It is further stated thereafter
defendant no.1 had alienated suit schedule property in favour
of defendants no.2 to 7. Therefore, plaintiff had filed application
for impleading them, same was allowed and they were
impleaded. And as said defendants were trying to take
advantage of sale deed and interfering with possession, cause
of action for present application had accrued and application
was filed. Though contention about application being barred by
principle of constructive res-judicata were urged, Trial Court
under impugned order duly considered said contention and
rejected it. Rejection of application for temporary injunction
against non alienation would not be a bar for filing application
for temporary injunction for protection of plaintiff's possession.
Similarity of objections of defendants against both applications
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3120
HC-KAR
would not be sufficient justification for interference. No case of
perversity pointed out. Trial Court has on reference to rival
pleadings and contentions, framed proper points for
consideration and passed impugned order by assigning detailed
reasons. No case for interference made out.
7. Appeal is dismissed, but with observation that
parties may request Trial Court for expeditious conclusion of
suit and if such request is made, Trial Court to expedite
disposal of suit. It is clarified that observations made by Trial
Court in impugned order as well as this Court in present order
would not bind Trial Court at time of passing final judgment.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN
Ct :Vk
