Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
Venaktachala Reddy S/o. Late Konda Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Rame Gowda S/o. Late Koorgalli Siddalah – Respondent
ORDER :
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
Heard Smt.Susheela, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nagesh Vinay S. for petitioner and Sri S.V.Giridhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in O.S.No.268/2016, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.08.2025 passed in M.A.No.7/2025 by VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 18.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.XIII in O.S.No.268/2016 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru.
4. The plaintiff had initiated a suit against the defendants for declaration and other consequential benefit. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff had filed an application in I.A.No.XIII under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein he sought for an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.2, 4 to 6, 8 to 15, their agents, henchmen, servants, supporters or any other person or persons, claiming any right under or through them, from interfering with the schedule property, pending dispo
A plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential hardship to obtain a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
In property disputes, possession follows title; plaintiffs established a prima facie case warranting temporary injunction despite defendants' claims.
A party seeking a temporary injunction must establish lawful possession, a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
The court emphasized that a party seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm, with a failure to do so justifying dismissa....
In property disputes involving conflicting claims, the court must evaluate the evidence presented to determine the balance of convenience and the necessity for a trial to resolve ownership issues.
In a suit for injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for granting a temporary injunction, highlighting the trial court's failure to ad....
Defendants, who file a counter claim against the plaintiff, can maintain an application for temporary injunction against the plaintiff. Additionally, the court may injunct the plaintiff to maintain s....
The court upheld the 1st Appellate Court's grant of temporary injunction to protect the plaintiff's possession of the property pending adjudication, affirming that appellate courts focus on preservin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
