The court emphasized the necessity of framing appropriate issues under the CPC to ensure a fair trial in cases of specific performance and possession claims.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners/plaintiffs 1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question an order dated 07-04-2025 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.1453 of 2024 rejecting an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 14 Rule 5(1) & (2) of the CPC seeking recast of issues framed on 20-11-2024, by the issues proposed in the application as additional issues and deleting issues 4 and 5 originally framed.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The 1^st petitioner-M/s Srinivasa Trust (‘the Trust’ for short) which is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 is said to be running multiple educational institutions including Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre.

The issue revolves round the suit schedule property. On 30-05-2000 the suit schedule property is purchased by the 1^st respondent in terms of a registered sale deed. The 1^st respondent is said to have entered into an agreement of sale on 13-03-2023 with the Trust in respect of the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 80/- crores. Pursuant to the sale agreement, the 2^nd petitioner being the Managing Trustee of the Trust, authorizes a sum of Rs. 70/- crores to be transferred through RTGS in favour of the 1^st respondent as advance amount and what is said to have been remaining is only Rs. 10/- crores, which was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed.

2.1. The plaintiffs were thereafter intimated or came to their knowledge that the 1^st respondent is likely to alienate the property in favour of some third parties and, therefore, file suit in O.S.No.1453 of 2024 for specific performance of sale agreement dated 13-03-2023. The concerned Court grants an ex-parte injunction restraining the 1^st respondent from alienating the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs also communicate to the District Registrar and all the jurisdictional Sub-Registrars regarding the ex- parte injunction granted on 26-02-2024. During the subsistence of these proceedings, on 13-03-2024, the 2^nd respondent/2^nd defendant is said to have purchased the suit schedule property in terms of the sale deed dated 13-03-2024. The allegation now is, that the 1^st respondent has sold the property during the subsistence of the ex-parte injunction and, therefore, it is in violation of ex- parte injunction.

2.2. During the subsistence of the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.1453 of 2024, the 2^nd respondent institutes O.S.No.2897 of 2024 for bare injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with the possession of the 2^nd defendant/2^nd respondent. The BBMP is said to have issued khatha on the strength of the sale deed executed in favour of the 2^nd defendant. On 20-07-2024, written statement is filed by the 1^st respondent in O.S.No.1453 of 2024 and on subsequent dates, written statement is filed by other defendants. In the suit preferred by the 2^nd defendant in O.S.No.2897 of 2024, the Court grants injunction against the petitioners/plaintiffs concerning the suit schedule property on 01-10-2024. The plaintiffs then prefer M.F.A.No.6603 of 2024 calling in question the order of temporary injunction granted in the said original suit. The same is allowed in part, by modifying the order of the trial Court granting injunction, to that of parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. After the said order, issues are framed by the concerned Court on 20-11-2024. On framing of issues, the plainti