The court clarified that injunction grants depend on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable injury, rejecting the trial court’s basis for denial.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff/appellant under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) he Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"), assailing the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned XXVII Addl. City Civil and Session Judge (CCH-09), Bengaluru City passed in O.S. No.160/2025, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed IA No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an order of Temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from putting up further construction over the suit B-schedule property.

2. The suit filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court is one for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction in respect of a residential property bearing No.25, measuring 38x48 feet more fully described as A-Schedule property in the plaint. It is a specific case of the plaintiff, that there exists a 6-feet-wide lane between the A-Schedule property and 26^th B Main Road, passing between the houses of the defendants predecessors and another person, Imam Sab, which provides only access to the plaintiff's property. This strip of land is described in the plaint as the suit B-Schedule property.

3. The grievance of the plaintiff is, that the defendants, by taking advantage of certain outdated and inconsistent measurements mentioned in the Gift Deed dated 17.01.1947, are constructing a building over the said passage, thereby obstructing access to the plaintiff's property and violating her easements rights. Along with the plaint, plaintiff has produced a rough sketch and photographs showing the existence of the passage and alleged encroachment and has sought interim relief to maintain the status-quo.

4. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings and objections, declined to grant Temporary injunction on the ground that, the plaintiff failed to establish the prima facie case so as to grant Temporary injunction. It relied on the description of the boundaries in the Gift Deed and Sale Deed and observed that, there was no mention of a 6-feet passage in the property documents. It also noted that, construction had advanced to the 1^st floor and that injuncting further construction would cause undue hardship to the defendants. By observing so, the Trial Court rejected the application with cost.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant with all vehemence submits that, when defendant is encroaching the 6-feet-wide strip of land situated between their houses and passage running east to west from 26^th B Main Road, forming part of the B-schedule property, thereby the plaintiff is deprived of making use of the said 6-feet-wide strip. He would submit that, on perusal of the documents so produced, so also the Gift Deed dated 17.01.1947 reveals that, there is no mention with regard to the said 6-feet-wide passage and plaintiff is constant to file the suit seeking the aforesaid relief. The plaintiff refers to her own Sale Deed which shows that, there exists a 6-feet-wide road on western side of A-Schedule property. By relying upon the said documents and grounds urged in the appeal memo, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant/plaintiff to allow the appeal and set aside impugned order and sought relief of injunction against the defendants as prayed in IA No.1.

6. As against this submission, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants justified the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and submits that, the photograph so produced by the defendants not only before the Trial Court, so also before this Court do establish that, the construction of building is already in progress and halting the said co