A party seeking a temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and approach the court with clean hands; lack of evidence or lawful possession can lead to dismissal of injunction applications.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Heard learned counsel Sri.Krishnamurthy K.R., on behalf of the petitioner-Society and learned senior counsel Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa appearing on behalf of the Sri.R.S.Subramanya Kaushik, learned counsel for Caveator/Respondent No.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

2. Parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants, as per their status before the trial Court.

3. This petition is filed by the plaintiff, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed in M.A.No.89/2025 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru, whereby the First Appellate Court set aside the order passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.175/2025 whereby the trial Court had allowed I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-Society, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit. The schedule is mentioned in the application as well. To this application, statement of objections was filed by the defendants. Upon hearing the contentions of both the parties, learned trial Judge granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-Society, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The same was challenged by defendants before the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.85/2025. On service of notice to the plaintiff, the same was heard and the Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the defendants, vacated the interim order granted by the trial Court and dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiff in toto. Consequently, allowed I.A.No.4 filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC for vacating the said interim order. It is this order of the Appellate Court which is questioned by the plaintiff before this Court.

5. Learned counsel Sri.Krishnamurthy appearing on behalf of the plaintiff contended that the order passed by the Appellate Court is perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the Appellate Court has not considered the materials placed on record and misconstrued itself by misreading the rough sketch produced by the plaintiff and other materials placed on record. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the Appellant Court has ignored the well considered reasoned order passed by the trial Court while appreciating the materials placed on record and has exceeded its jurisdiction by vacating the interim order on vague and flimsy grounds without going through the records. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that even according to the defendants, the suit schedule property is unidentifiable. So also the defendants are not claiming the property belonging to the plaintiff and neither the plaintiff claiming the property of the defendants. Learned counsel further contends that the Appellate Court has failed to notice that the conversion order produced by the defendants which shows that on the eastern side of the property Bachhappa’s land in Sy.No.4/4B1 is situated and that there is no Rajakal