Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
Lokesh Naik M L S/o Late Lachamma Naik – Appellant
Versus
H P Vedavyasacharya S/o Late Sri. Haveri Praneshacharya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
The appeal is filed by the appellants/proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 questioning the order dated 11.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.XVII filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in OS.No.3938/2015 on the file of LXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-76), Bangalore, thereby, restraining appellants No.3 and 4 or their agents/henchmen or anyone claiming under them from entering or in any manner carrying out any work in the schedule properties/suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit.
2. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have filed the suit against respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule ‘B’ property through common passage for ingress and egress and other legally permitted usages such as laying of water, drainage and electricity pipes and also for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 to remove the illegal structure put up by them in this space of 5 feet passage on the eastern side and also prayed for mandatory injunction dire
The High Court ruled that the necessity for essential services justifies the use of a common property passage, overriding temporary injunction constraints improperly imposed by the Trial Court.
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....
Point of law: If an injunction is obtained falsely stating that High Court has refused to grant an injunction and when the same is also not considered on main and it will be considered along with mai....
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 plaintiff must demonstrate prima facie ownership, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm to secure a temporary injunction.
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....
Temporary injunction – For the purpose of claiming relief of interim injunction of restraining defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment, one has to prima facie, establish po....
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.
The court reaffirmed that established ownership through undoubted sale deeds and municipal approvals is paramount, shifting the burden of proof to the defendants when such ownership is claimed.
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
