The main legal point established is that a fresh cause of action justifies the filing of a separate suit for temporary injunction, and the Court must consider the conduct of the parties and the principles of forum shopping in reaching its decision.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) r/w Section 151 of CPC praying this Court to set aside the order of the Trial Court in rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking for the relief of temporary injunction defendant Nos.5 to 7 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, I.A.No.2 seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating or creating any third party interest, charge or encumbrance over the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit and I.A.No.3 seeking to restraining the defendants from putting up of any constructions over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that one Sri Krishnappa, who is the propositor of the family and his wife namely Smt.Rajalakshmi had two sons and six daughters. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Sri K.Harish Kumar and granddaughter of said Krishnappa. After the death of said K.Harish Kumar, his wife got disconnected the relationship and the plaintiff was under the care of her maternal uncle. It is also the case of the plaintiff that there was a partition between Krishnappa and his brothers after the death of their father late Maheshwarappa @ Maheshriah in the year 1950 and the suit schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff's grand father namely Krishnappa. The plaintiff was born on 18.10.1969 and her mother namely Smt.Sushila @ Sushilamma remarried. Therefore, the plaintiff is the only legal heir to succeed and represent the share of her father. Hence, the suit is filed for the relief of partition in O.S.No.4455/2019 and the same is pending for consideration. It is also alleged in the plaint that defendant Nos.1 to 4 without having any absolute ownership over the suit schedule property entered into the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on 07.07.2021 with defendant Nos.5 to 7 whereas, defendant Nos.5 to 7 taking undue advantage of said JDA have demolished the old building situated in suit schedule property on 20.11.2022 and now they are trying to put up illegal construction over the suit schedule property. Hence, they filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction and also inter alia sought for the relief of restraining defendant Nos.5 to 7 by way of temporary injunction by putting up construction since they were making an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and illegal interference has to be restrained and also making an attempt to alienate the suit schedule property and hence, sought the relief by filing separate applications i.e., I.A.Nos.1 to 3.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants have entered appearance, filed written statements and objections to the aforesaid I.As.

5. The main contention urged before the Trial Court in the written statement is that already the plaintiff has filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.4455/2019 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession and the relief of permanent injunction is also sought in the said suit. It is contended that hence, the plaintiff cannot maintain a parallel proceedings in the competent Court with respect of very same suit schedule property with the same relief. Hence, a suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. The suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction itself is not maintainable and there is no fresh cause of action to file a suit for simpliciter. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected by invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

6. It is also contended that when the suit itself is not maintainable, question of granting temporary injunction does not arise. It is also contended that plaintiff knowing the fact that already suit is filed and also similar applications are filed in th