To grant a temporary injunction, a court must evaluate prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential hardship, reaffirming that clear boundaries and ownership issues necessitate further trial scrutiny.

ORDER :

Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the caveator/respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-Anekal in MA No.40/2024, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff challenging the order passed by the III Additional Civil Judge, JMFC Anekal on IA No.1 in OS No. 596/2023, which was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.

3. It is the contention of learned counsel Sri.K.B.S.Manian appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra Reddy B.R. that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and the same deserve to be set aside.

4. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction in which an application came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction which was initially granted, and later on, on appearance of the defendants and on contest the same came to be vacated, which is confirmed by the appellate Court in MA No.40/2024. It is contended by learned counsel that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not appreciated the merits of the matter on the facts of the case and have come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner through his predecessors obtaining the right and title to an extent of 2 acres in Survey No.72 of the suit schedule property. Despite which, have come to a wrong conclusion that the boundaries are not properly described and demarcated, which is not the correct procedure to have been followed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

5. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court committed an error in holding that the plaint schedule property is half a kilometer away from the sites thus claimed to be put up by the defendants. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case there is any dispute with regard to boundaries and as per the case of the defendants that the land of the plaintiff is situated half a kilometre away, the same ought to have been resolved by way of appointment of a Court Commissioner for identification of the property, which has not been done by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, thereby causing miscarriage of justice to the plaintiff.

6. He further contends that at least the Court could have passed an order of status quo to be maintained by the defendants where they have illegally put up construction of a building in pursuance to an order that was passed in favour of the plaintiff by way of an ad- interim measure prior to issuance of notice to the defendants. It is no doubt, he contends that defendants also filed suit for an injunction which was granted in his favour. But that does not preclude the plaintiff from obtaining an order of temporary injunction on the basis of the documents and facts exhibited by him in the plaint and the documents and affidavit annexed along with the application.

7. It is also vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the trial Court ought to have resolved the issue with regard to boundaries by way of appointment of the Court Commissioner to demarcate their respective boundaries and could have ascertained the same and thereafter could have passed the order. It is his contention that he is the absolute owner of 2 acres of land in