[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mohammed Imran vs Sri. Imtiyaz Ahmed on 26 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12085
MFA No. 234 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.234 OF 2026 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. MOHAMMED IMRAN
S/O MR. MOHAMMED FARHATULLA
@ MR. MOHAMMED FARHATHULLA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT OLD NO.53,
NEW NO.16/4, 4TH CROSS,
GOWTHAMPURAM, ULSOOR,
BANGALORE-560 008.
2. MR. MOHAMMED SALMAN,
S/O MR. MOHAMMED FARHATULLA
@ MR. MOHAMMED FARHATHULLA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT OLD NO.53,
NEW NO.16/4, 4TH CROSS,
Digitally signed by GOWTHAMPURAM, ULSOOR,
PREMCHANDRA M R BANGALORE-560 008.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. IMTIYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE ABDUL KHAYUM,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.43/1,
RHA BAZAAR STREET CROSS ROAD,
GOWTHAMAPURAM, ULSOOR,
BANGALORE-560 008.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:12085
MFA No. 234 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. SRI. ZAFRULLA ALIAS BABU,
S/O LATE ABDUL KHAYUM,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.45, PH 01,
ZAITOON APARTMENT,
THIMMAIAH ROAD,
H.K.P. ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SRI. MUJEEB AHMED,
S/O LATE ABDUL KHAYUM,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.43/1,
RHA BAZAAR STREET CROSS ROAD,
GOWTHAMAPURAM. ULSOOR.
BANGALORE-560 008.
4. SRI. ABDUL SALEEM,
ADOPTED SON OF LATE ABDUL BASHEER,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.43/1,
RHA BAZAAR STREET CROSS ROAD,
GOWTHAMAPURAM, ULSOOR,
BANGALORE-560 008.
5. SMT. VASIYA BEGUM,
W/O SRI. MOHAMMED SANAULLA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.45, PH 01
ZAITOON APARTMENT,
THIMMAIAH ROAD, H.K.P. ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 001.
6. SMT. ZUBERIYA BEGUM,
W/O LATE MOHAMMED KHALEELULLA.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.45, PH 01
ZAITOON APARTMENT,
THIMMAIAH ROAD, H.K.P. ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:12085
MFA No. 234 of 2026
HC-KAR
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 001.
7. SMT. SHABANA BEGUM,
W/O SRI. NAZEER AHMED @ FAQROO,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.45, PH 01
ZAITOON APARTMENT,
THIMMAIAH ROAD, H.K.P. ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) READ WITH SECTION 104 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Mohammed Tahir, counsel for the appellants and
Sri.M.Srinivas, counsel for respondents 1 to 7, have appeared
in person.
2. The captioned appeal is filed to set aside the order
dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Court of XXXI Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-14) on I.A.No.2 in
O.S.No.7203/2024.
NC: 2026:KHC:12085
HC-KAR
As this appeal is filed under Order 43, the scope of
inquiry is limited only to the impugned order arising from the
interlocutory application, and does not extend to the merits of
the main suit.
3. For convenience's the parties shall be referred to as
per their status and ranking before the Trial Court.
4. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking certain relief. They
also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of
CPC for an order of temporary injunction restraining the
defendants, his agents, privies, servants and henchmen from
interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The
defendants filed an objection to the application. The Trial Court
vide order dated:15.12.2025 dismissed the application. Under
these circumstances, this appeal is filed on several grounds as
set out in the memorandum of appeal.
5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions.
NC: 2026:KHC:12085
HC-KAR
Counsel Sri.Mohammed Tahir, in presenting his
arguments, submits that a memo has been filed stating that Mr
Abdulla Qurishi, son of Mr Zafrulla alias Babu, the second
defendant, has filed a suit in O.S.No.2925/2025. He has sought
the relief of a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the
suit schedule property, and he has also sought that he should
be put in possession of the suit schedule property. Counsel
argued by saying that due to inadvertence, the same was not
brought to the notice of the Trial Court while considering the
application for temporary injunction by producing the true copy
of the plaint copy. Counsel further submits that the plaintiffs
may be permitted to produce a copy of the plaint to consider
the prima facie case and balance of convenience as far as the
possession is concerned. Counsel, therefore, submits that the
memo may be placed on record and the matter may be
remanded to the Trial Court.
Counsel Sri.M.Srinivas justified the order of the Trial
Court. Having urged various contentions on the merits, the
counsel for the defendants contend that the appeal is
NC: 2026:KHC:12085
HC-KAR
groundless and ought to be dismissed and submits that the
appeal may be dismissed.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with
utmost care. The memo is placed on record.
Bearing in mind that the scope of inquiry is restricted
solely to the impugned interlocutory order, the issue for
consideration is limited to whether the Trial Court was justified
in dismissing the application.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for a permanent injunction. The
defendants filed a written statement. Perused the impugned
order with care. The Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by
pre-judging the merits of the suit at an interlocutory stage. The
impugned order constitutes a 'mini-trial,' which is prohibited
while deciding an application for a temporary injunction.
Furthermore, the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by
recording final findings on title/merits (discussing the issue
about Hiba), which should be reserved for the final disposal of
the suit. Taking note of the plaintiff's submission that the
failure to disclose the pendency of the prior suit was due to
NC: 2026:KHC:12085
HC-KAR
inadvertence, this Court, being of the view that no prejudice is
caused to the defendants, grants leave to the plaintiffs to
produce a copy of the plaint and allows them to contend on the
prima facie case and balance of convenience.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of
the Trial Court is unsustainable in law, and therefore, it is set
aside with a direction to remand the matter for fresh
consideration.
8. Although counsel for defendants has argued the
merits at length, this Court will confine itself to testing the
legality and propriety of the impugned interlocutory order, as
noted earlier.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by
the Court of XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-14) on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.7203/2024 is set
aside and the plaintiffs are permitted to produce the true copy
of the plaint in O.S.No.2925/2025 to urge the contentions
regarding the prima facie case and balance of convenience. The
defendants are permitted to urge their contentions. The Trial
NC: 2026:KHC:12085
HC-KAR
Court is directed to reconsider the injunction application afresh.
All the contentions are left open.
10. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and remanded.
Because of the disposal of the appeal, the interim order
granted, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory
applications, if any are disposed of.
SD/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
