Back
2026 Supreme(Kar) 625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.
A. Prabhakar Naidu, Son Of Late Papanna - Appellant
Versus
M/S. Sri Balaji Infra Builders - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3589 of 2026 (CPC)
Decided On : 14-07-2026
For the Appellant :Sri Aditya Chatterjee, Advocate, Ms. Nikitha Surabhi, Advocate And Sri Numair Farooq, Advocate For Sri Rishab D. Desai, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Srikanth K., Advocate And Sri Jitto Joseph, Advocate
An ad interim injunction obtained through suppression of material facts is liable to be set aside. In cases involving voluminous evidence and complex factual disputes, the appellate court may remit the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision on merits rather than substituting its own view.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Temporary Injunction - Grant of ad interim order - Suppression of material facts and fraud on the court - Where a plaintiff obtains an ex parte interim relief by allegedly misrepresenting material facts, suppressing prior litigation involving the same property, or ignoring a subsisting interim order from another court, the order is liable to be set aside. (Paras 3, 3.5, 3.6)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Remittal to Trial Court - When an ad interim order is challenged and the case involves complex factual disputes, including the identity of the property and the validity of a Joint Development Agreement, backed by voluminous records not previously considered by the trial court, the appellate court may remit the matter for a fresh decision on merits rather than substituting its own view at the interlocutory stage. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
A suit for bare injunction was instituted seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of a suit schedule property based on a Joint Development Agreement. The trial court granted an ad interim temporary injunction. The defendants challenged this order in appeal, contending that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, specifically that the landowners had previously lost suits regarding the property's title and that a prior interim order in a different suit had restrained the alienation of the property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rival contentions and the voluminous documents, including sale deeds and photographs, had not been considered by the trial court during the grant of the ad interim order. Given that the application for temporary injunction had not yet been finally decided on its merits, it was appropriate to remit the matter to the trial court for a comprehensive examination of the evidence and the allegations of fraud.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in passing the impugned order granting an ad interim order of temporary injunction and whether the same called for interference by the appellate court. (Para 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The detailed appreciation of pleadings, voluminous documents, and allegations of suppression of material facts is a function of the court of first instance. In the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over an ad interim order, the court should not substitute its own adjudication of these facts but should remit the matter to ensure a proper hearing on merits in the trial court.
Result: Appeal allowed-in-part; impugned order dated 22.05.2026 set aside; matter remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration and disposal within fifteen days; respondent restrained from further construction, alienation, or creating encumbrance over the suit schedule property until the application is decided.
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.
This appeal is preferred by the appellants–defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the impugned order dated 22.05.2026 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.3597/2026 by X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court granted an ad interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property until the next date of hearing.
2. Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for appellants-defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the well-settled principles governing the grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It is further contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that plaintiff has deliberately suppressed material facts, has not approached the Court with clean hands and has played fraud upon the Court. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the plaintiff mislead the trial Court by misrepresenting material facts in the application for temporary injunction and on the basis of such misrepresentation and suppression, obtained the impugned order, which therefore deserves to be set aside.
3.1 It is further contended by learned counsel for appellants-defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the suit for bare injunction, as instituted by the plaintiff, is not maintainable at the outset, as the plaintiff has neither any right, title nor interest in the suit schedule property. It is submitted that even the principal of the plaintiff, who is stated to have executed the Joint Development Agreement (for short, 'JDA'), had no valid right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any right to enter upon or put up construction in the suit schedule property on the strength of the said JDA.
3.2 It is further contended that in fact, the executants of JDA had already suffered a decree in O.S.No.1182/2014, instituted by defendant Nos.1 and 2, which came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.03.2017. Thereafter, the very same executants of JDA, under whom the plaintiff claims, instituted O.S.No.1373/2016 against defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said suit also came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 20.03.2024. Consequently, it is submitted that the plaintiff, claiming under the said executants, cannot assert any better right than its principals.
3.3 It is also contended by learned counsel for appellants-defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the aforesaid judgments and decrees have attained finality, as the same have not been challenged before any appropriate Forum. It is submitted that the dismissal of O.S.No.1373/2016, instituted by the purported landowners, namely, the executants of JDA, has become final. Further, no steps have been taken to restore the said suit after its dismissal. Consequently, it is contended that the plaintiff, claiming through the said executants, cannot assert any right contrary to the judgments that have attained finality.
3.4 It is also contended by learned counsel for appellants-defendant Nos.1 and 2 that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have instituted O.S.No.973/2026 against the plaintiff as well as the executants of JDA. In the said suit, the competent Court, by order dated 30.04.2026, granted an interim order restraining the defendants therein from alienating the suit schedule property or altering its nature. It is further submitted that the said interim order was duly communicated in compliance with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC and copies of the order along with the relevant documents were served on all the respondents, including the present respondent No.1- plaintiff on 06.05.2026. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have produced the postal acknowledgements evidencing due service of the said order before this Court. The same is perused.
3.5 It is
