The appeal emphasizes that an appellate court should not override a trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless exercised arbitrarily, as seen in the established possession rights of the plaintiff.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner in W.P.No.20910 of 2023/plaintiff is before this Court calling in question an order dated 28-02-2023 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru insofar as it orders status quo in favour of the respondent in M.A.No.13 of 2022. The petitioner in W.P.No.5972 of 2023/defendant is calling in question order dated 22-04-2022 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.364 of 2021 and the order passed by the Civil Judge which is challenged by the plaintiff referred to supra.

2. Heard Sri Ajesh Kumar S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

3.1. In this order parties would be referred as per their rank in the original suit. The plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are said to be comprising of coffee estate, agricultural land and other trees, which according to the averment in the petition are all valuable. There is also a house constructed in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff had raised a loan from R.B.L. Bank concerning the suit schedule properties amongst other properties. Pending clearance of loan, the plaintiff and the defendant enter into a memorandum of understanding on 13-08-2020 and later an agreement of sale on 04-02-2021. It is the averment in the petition that in terms of the agreement, possession of the suit schedule properties was to be delivered to the defendant only in a manner contemplated in a particular clause in the sale agreement. The plaintiff is said to have discharged the debt with the Bank by raising funds from third parties and the Bank is said to have rendered a discharge deed of clearance of loan.

3.2. It is the further averment in the petition that the defendant is said to have collected huge sums of money from third parties to the tune of Rs.3,10,00,000/- and the same has been deposited in the account maintained by the defendant in the Bank. The defendant then files a writ petition in W.P.No.19489 of 2021 seeking a direction for execution of sale deed in his favour against the Bank, contending that the Bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and therefore, the petition had been preferred for execution of the sale deed. Persons from whom the defendant had collected money fraudulently and deposited the same in the Bank, register a crime against the defendant in Crime No.24 of 2022 alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating as obtaining in Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC . The bank account of the defendant had been frozen at the instance of the Investigating Officer investigating into Crime No.24 of 2022.

3.3. The defendant files a writ petition in W.P.No.6021 of 2022 calling in question the said crime. In the said proceedings, a settlement is arrived at between the parties thereto wherein the 3^rd parties were assured that their money would be returned and on that score the complaint comes to be quashed. In all these proceedings, the plaintiff/petitioner avers neither the Bank nor the defendant/respondent took possession of the property and the property remained with the possession of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant began to trespass into the suit schedule properties and therefore several proceedings emerge between the parties beginning from O.S.No.364 of 2021 filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the plaintiff files an application I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 again seeking a restraint from the