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.

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 disposal of the suit. The objections were filed by the contesting defendants.

5. After hearing the arguments on the said application, the trial Court dismissed the same, which came to be challenged by the plaintiff before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.7/2025, whereby the Appellate Court had dismissed the said appeal and confirmed order passed by the trial Court.

6. It is the vehement contention of Smt.Susheela, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the materials placed on record. It is also contended that the trial Court has erroneously passed an order without application of mind and proper appreciation of the materials placed on the record. Despite several documents produced by the plaintiff before the trial Court to show that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and is in a settled possession and also the fact that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the same and erroneously passed the impugned order rejecting the application for grant of an order of temporary injunction.

6.1. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further contended that there is no dispute with regard to the plaintiff being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, as defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the counterclaim, in fact, sought for nullification of the Sale Deed dated 07.08.2014. The plaintiff had purchased the property for a valuable consideration from defendant Nos.1 and 2, which has been conveniently ignored by the trial Court.

6.2. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate certain other facts with regard to the plaintiff being in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as owner since 07.08.2014, which is clearly depicted in the revenue records such as the RTC and his name is reflected in the suit schedule property in M.R.No.T50/2020-21 and that the plaintiff has been paying property tax to the concerned Authority along with the electricity connection, which is in the name of the plaintiff. These facts clearly show that pursuant to the registered Sale Deed dated 07.08.2014, the plaintiff has been paying the taxes on the property and has electricity connection to the s