The court upheld the trial court's discretion in granting temporary injunction despite previous application rejection, emphasizing distinct relief sought.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi in O.S.no.8/2022 on IA no.XI, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, learned counsel for appellants submitted that appeal was by defendants no.2 to 7 in suit filed by respondent no.1, for partition and separate possession of his half share in suit property etc. It was submitted plaintiff had earlier filed I.A.no.I under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction. On opposition, said application was rejected by Trial Court by order dated 08.12.2022. Despite rejection of earlier application, I.A.no.XI was filed under very same provision, once again for temporary injunction. It was submitted, application would not be maintainable. Despite said contention having being urged, Trial Court passed impugned order. It was further submitted grounds for opposing application by defendants would be same as urged against I.A.no.I. On said ground also impugned order would call for interference. It was lastly submitted appellant was purchaser of suit property after rejection of earlier application for temporary injunction and was a bonafide purchaser. Therefore, passing of order of temporary injunction against appellant was contrary to law. On said grounds sought for allowing of appeal.

3. Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.3 to 5 opposed appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order and material placed along with memorandum of appeal.

5. This appeal is against discretionary order passed by Trial Court under provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure . Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd.Mehtab Khan and others vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others , [(2013) 9 SCC 221] has held scope for interference against discretionary order passed by Trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure would be extremely limited and even if view taken by Trial Court were one of possible views, there could be no interference unless order suffered from perversity. First ground urged is application is filed under same provision. Said such contention would be too overbroad to hold water. Merely on ground that application is filed under same provision would not be a bar for Trial Court to entertain application if relief sought is different. Prayer sought in IA no.I was for temporary injunction against alienation, changing of mutation entries etc., whereas in present, plaintiff is seeking an order of temporary injunction against interference with possession.

6. Perusal of order dated 08.12.2022, rejecting I.A.no.I would not reveal any finding about plaintiff not being in possession. In affidavit filed in support of present application (IA No.XI), it is stated that on filing of suit on 20.01.2022, I.A.no.I was filed as plaintiff was apprehending alienation of suit property by defendant no.1, Court granting ex-parte order of temporary injunction on 27.01.2022 but later dismissed application on 08.12.2022. It is further stated thereafter defendant no.1 had alienated suit schedule property in favour of defendants no.2 to 7. Therefore, plaintiff had filed application for impleading them, same was allowed and they were impleaded. And as said defendants were trying to take advantage of sale deed and interfering with possession, cause of action for present application had accrued and application was filed. Though contention about application being barred by principle of constructive res-judicata were urged, Trial Court under impugned order duly considered said contention and rejected it. Rejection of application for temporary injunction against non alienation would not be a bar for filing application for