A plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience, failure of which can lead to denial of the injunction.

JUDGMENT :

Jyoti M, J.

Sri. M. Veerabhadraiah, counsel for the appellant and Sri. Roopesha, counsel for respondents 1 to 4, appeared in person.

2. For convenience’s the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of specific performance on the following averments.

4. It is stated that Defendant Nos.5 to 8, being the owners of the Schedule A property, entered into a registered Joint Development Agreement on 20.05.2013, with a subsequent supplementary agreement dated 05.11.2015 with the first defendant - company represented by its Director and executed a registered GPA dated 05.11.2015 in favour of the first defendant - company to facilitate them to carry out the development work without any problem. In terms of the registered JDA, the first defendant - company shall get 36% share in the developed area in the Schedule 'A' property.

5. The records maintained by the statutory authority under the respective statute show that defendant No.1 is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the Directors of the first defendant - company.

6. The first defendant - company represented by its Director based on the JDA and supplementary agreement, entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.12.2015 with the plaintiff to sell the Suit Schedule 'B' property out of their 36% share in the developed area in Suit Schedule 'A' property for a valuable sale consideration amount of Rs.24,03,480/- and received first part sale consideration amount of Rs.4,95,758/- from the plaintiff through the mode mentioned therein. The plaintiff, having agreed to purchase the suit Schedule 'B' property, became a party to the agreement of sale. The registered agreement of sale dated December 26, 2015, stipulates certain terms and conditions that are binding on both parties.

7. Upon the exchange of notices between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, and when the defendant No.1 refused to execute the registered sale deed on technical grounds, the plaintiff was left with no alternative in the preliminary stage. Hence, he filed suit for specific performance before the Commercial Court, Chikamangaluru, in Commercial O.S.No.60 of 2023. The Commercial Court, in its order dated 11.07.2023, returned the plaint directing the plaintiff to represent the same before the jurisdictional Civil Court. It is stated that along with the plaint, applications in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, was filed for the grant of temporary injunction against defendants 1 to 4.

8. Thereafter, the plaintiff represented the plaint before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur in O.S.No.143 of 2023. On service of notice to defendants 1 to 8, they appeared and filed their written statement. However, defendant Nos.5 to 8 did not contest I.A.Nos.1 and 2. But defendant Nos.1 to 4 adopted averments of the written statement as objections to I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and contested the applications. The Trial Court, in its order dated 28.08.2025, dismissed the applications. Under these circumstances, the appellant has filed the above appeal on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Appeal.

9. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the following decisions.

1. DALPAT KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS PRALHAD SINGH AND OTHERS (1992) 1 SCC 719 .

2. S. BRAMHANAND AND OTHERS VS K.R. MUTHUGOPAL (DEAD) AND OTHERS (2005) 12 SCC 764.

3. PANCHANAN DHARA AND OTHERS VS MONMATHA NATH MAITY (DEAD) T