This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated

04.02.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.8182/2022 on the file of

the XI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City,

whereby the said application filed by the respondent - plaintiff for

temporary injunction restraining the appellant - defendant from

changing the nature or character of the suit schedule property and

from putting up any construction thereon was allowed by the trial

court.

- 4 -

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants

and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the

materials placed on record.

The material on record discloses that the respondent -

plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction

interalia contending that they were declared to have 1/3^rd share in

the suit schedule property pursuant to the preliminary decree dated

15.05.2012 passed in O.S.No.7848/2002 and 6084/2005. In the

plaint, it was contended that the respondents - plaintiffs had not yet

initiated Final Decree Proceedings to enforce and to implement the

said preliminary decree and since the defendants were attempting

to change and alter the nature and character of the suit schedule

property and they were trying to put up construction thereon, the

respondents - plaintiffs instituted the said suit for permanent

injunction and other reliefs.

The appellants - defendants entered appearance and

contesting the suit.

5.

Along with the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an

application I.A.No.1 for temporary injunction restraining the

defendants, their agents, workers, henchmen, family members or

- 5 -

anybody claiming through them from putting up any construction or

changing the nature of the suit schedule property, pending disposal

of the suit. The defendant not only filed the written statement

contesting the suit but also filed objections to I.A.No.1 and after

hearing the parties, the trial Court proceeded to confirm the ad-

interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction in favour of the

respondents - plaintiffs against the appellants - defendants who are

before this court by way of the present appeal.

6.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged

in the memorandum of appeal and referring to the material on

record, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the suit itself was

not maintainable, since the same was barred under Section 41(h)

of the Specific Relief Act in view of availability of equally

efficacious and alternative remedy by way of instituting Final

Decree Proceedings by the respondents -plaintiffs. It is submitted

that at any rate, subsequent to institution of the suit, the

respondents had already instituted Final Decree Proceedings in

FDP No.6/2023 and filed an identical/similar application for

temporary injunction and the same was pending adjudication

before the Trial Court and consequently the impugned order

- 6 -

passed by the trial court granting temporary injunction in the suit

was erroneous and the same deserves to be set aside.

7.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, fairly

conceded that the Final Decree Proceedings had not been

instituted at the time of institution of the suit and FDP No.6/2023

was instituted subsequent to institution of the suit and prior to the

impugned order being passed and that an identical/similar

application for temporary injunction was pending in the said Final

Decree Proceedings. It is however submitted that mere pendency

of Final Decree Proceedings or an application in the same will not

come in the way of the present suit being adjudicated upon in

accordance with law and consequently the impugned order passed

by the trial court does not warrant interference by this Court in the

present appeal.

8.

I have given anxious consideration to the rival

submissions and perused the material on record.

9.

As rightly contended by the Senior Counsel for the

appellant, it is an undisputed fact that the suit is filed for an

omnibus /blanket permanent injunction restrai