[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri G Srinivas vs Smt. N Bharathi on 27 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12215
MFA No. 1489 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1489 OF 2026 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI G SRINIVAS,
S/O LATE G RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O. PLOT NO. 10, KOTTAL ROAD,
NEAR CHETHANA VIDYANIKETAN,
S.N. PET, KAMPLI POST, KAMPLI,
BELLARY-583132.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE,
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. N BHARATHI,
W/O. NARAYANASWAMY B.N,
Digitally signed by AGED 56 YEARS,
PREMCHANDRA M R
R/O. BAYAPALLI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF RONUTHIMMASANDRA POST,
KARNATAKA SRINIVASPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR-563135.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.G.NANJUNDARADHYA, ADVOCATE C/R)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:12215
MFA No. 1489 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.02.2026, THIS
DAY, AN JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CAV JUDGMENT
Sri.K.N.Phanindra, Senior counsel on behalf of
Smt.Vaishali Hegde, for the appellant and
Sri.B.G.Nanjundaradhya, counsel for caveator/ respondent,
appeared in person.
2. The captioned appeal is filed to set aside the order
dated 07.02.2026 passed by the Court of the I Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-2) at Bengaluru on I.A.No.1 in
O.S.No.2202/2025.
3. As this appeal is filed under Order 43, the scope of
inquiry is limited only to the impugned order arising from the
interlocutory application. It does not extend to the merits of the
main suit.
4. For convenience, the parties shall be referred to as
per their ranking and status before the Trial Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:12215
HC-KAR
5. The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction.
He also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2
of CPC for a temporary injunction. The Trial Court vide order
dated 25.03.2025 granted an ad-interim ex-parte temporary
injunction order. The Trial Court also issued TI Notice on
I.A.No.1 and suit summons to the defendant, subject to
compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3A of CPC. The defendant
entered an appearance and filed a written statement and
notably adopted the contents of the written statement as
objections to the temporary injunction application I.A.No.1.
The Trial Court dismissed the application in I.A.No.1. Under
these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the appeal on
several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of appeal.
6. Counsel for the respective parties presented several
contentions.
Senior counsel Sri.K.N.Phanindra, while presenting his
arguments, strenuously urged that the Trial Court had
dismissed the application, holding that there was a discrepancy
in the boundary described in the schedule to the I.A.No.1 at the
time the suit was filed. He argued that the reason for the
NC: 2026:KHC:12215
HC-KAR
amendment arose from an inadvertent bona fide typographical
error, which had resulted in the mis-description of the
property's southern boundary. It has been vehemently
contended that once the amendment to the suit schedule
property was carried out to reflect the correct boundaries, the
prior discrepancies were rectified. Counsel, therefore,
submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the
appeal may be allowed.
By way of reply to this contention, counsel
Sri.B.G.Nanjundaradhya, by placing reliance on Buchhi Reddy's
case, submitted that a suit for a bare injunction is not
maintainable. He argued by saying that the plaintiff does not
own the property, and he is not in possession, as is evident
from the complaint. It has been contended on behalf of the
defendant that the plaintiff has failed to carryout the
amendment in the application for the temporary injunction.
Urging other contentions on the merits of the case, lastly, he
submitted that the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the
application, and accordingly, he submitted that the appeal is
devoid of merit and the same may be dismissed.
NC: 2026:KHC:12215
HC-KAR
7. Heard the argument and perused the papers with
care.
8. 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 concluding that, due to discrepancies in the
southern boundary described in the schedule to the I.A.No.1,
the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, and was
therefore not entitled to a temporary injunction.
9. The plaintiff filed a suit for a bare injunction. In the
plaint schedule, the southern boundary was shown as a 'private
property'. While the southern boundary of the suit schedule
property was initially described as a private property; the
plaintiff, having carried out an amendment, has corrected the
description to reflect the same as 'road'. To be precise, the
plaintiff amended the schedule of property to redefine the
southern boundary from a 'private property' to 'road'. Notably,
the amendment was allowed without objection from the
defendant.
NC: 2026:KHC:12215
HC-KAR
10. It is pertinent to note that the injunction was
refused solely because of a clerical discrepancy in the
application schedule. In my view, the Trial Court erred in
dismissing the application solely based on a mis-description of
southern boundary in the application schedule, rather than on
the merits. The discrepancy in the boundary on the South side
was an inadvertent clerical error arising from an accidental slip,
and the same was amended in the plaint schedule.
Significantly, the defendant did not object to the
amendment. The Trial Court permitted the plaintiff to carryout
an amendment, and accordingly, the amendment was carried
out without objection by the defendant. If an amendment to
the plaint is allowed, it generally relates back to the date the
suit was filed. If the amendment is allowed, the existing
injunction application can be amended to reflect the changes.
Furthermore, the Courts often view an amendment to the plaint
schedule as impliedly covering the temporary injunction
application, especially if the amendment was allowed without
objection. Importantly, the defendant's non-opposition to the
amendment signifies acceptance of the new facts.
NC: 2026:KHC:12215
HC-KAR
The identity of the property is clearly established by the
description of the suit schedule property. At best, it can be
said that the error is a clerical, typographical, or accidental slip
or omission in the boundary description rather than a dispute
regarding the property's identity.
11. Counsel for the defendant strongly contended that
the proposed boundary amendment was absent from the
application. It is also contended that the Trial Court justifiably
dismissed the application due to the absence of the proposed
boundary amendment. The presented argument is noted, but I
am not persuaded by it. This contention is viewed as a hyper-
technicality rather than a substantive, prejudicial objection;
therefore, I am not inclined to accept it.
The defendant has failed to prove that the lack of a
formal amendment to the injunction application has caused
severe prejudice or injustice. The Court has misdirected itself in
law by failing to consider the foundational principles governing
the issue. I may venture to say that the impugned order
is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, as
the Trial Court failed to apply fundamental, well-settled legal
NC: 2026:KHC:12215
HC-KAR
principles to the facts of the case. To conclude, I can say only
this much that the impugned order is contrary to the settled
principles of equity, as the balance of convenience heavily tilted
in favor of the applicant/ plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for
an temporary injunction.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside, and accordingly it is set aside.
13. The order dated 07.02.2026 passed by the Court of
the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-2) at
Bengaluru on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.2202/2025 is set aside.
14. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed.
SD/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
