Court emphasized maintaining decorum and preventing actions that could prejudice parties' rights during ongoing litigation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeals are filed calling in question the common order dated 13.02.2025 passed on IA.Nos.2 and 3/2024 in OS.No.7871/2024 by the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-42), [Hereinafter referred as to ‘Trial Court’]

2. The relevant facts leading to the present appeals are that the appellants/plaintiffs instituted a suit in OS.No.7871/2024 seeking for an injunction against the defendants from interfering with or causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit Schedule-B properties as well as for an unfettered right of using and accessing the terrace penthouse unit No.402 (item No.5 in the schedule-B properties) and the roof above and for other reliefs. The said suit is contested by the defendants. The plaintiffs filed inter-alia IA.Nos.2/2024 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , [Hereinafter referred as to ‘CPC’] to direct defendant Nos.1 and 2 to remove the construction materials, doors, windows, old furniture etc., which have been put in the roof area above the fourth floor of penthouse units in the building, as also IA.No.3/2024 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to restrain defendant Nos.1 and 2 from pasting any posters containing any message concerning the plaintiffs in the common area of the apartment building situated in the schedule-A property. The said interim applications have been opposed by the defendants. The Trial Court vide order dated 13.02.2025 dismissed the applications. Being aggrieved, present appeals are filed.

3. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri A.M.Vijay appearing for the appellants and learned counsel Sri H.Suresh appearing for the caveator – respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. The essence of the case of the parties is that the plaintiffs/appellants are the land owners of the schedule-A property and respondent No.3/defendant No.3 is the developer who has put up construction of a multistoried residential apartment complex in the suit schedule-A property pursuant to HC-KAR the registered Joint Development Agreement dated 08.02.2018, [Hereinafter referred as to ‘JDA’]. Under the said JDA ground, 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd floors have been constructed, whereunder two residential units have been constructed in each of the floors. In the fourth floor portion, two penthouse units have been constructed. The parties are also claiming rights to put up further construction in the terrace portion above the fourth floor. Item Nos.1 to 4 in the schedule-B properties are the apartments situated in the ground and first floor, which have fallen to the share of the land owner in terms of the JDA. Item No.5 of the schedule-B properties is the penthouse apartment bearing No.402 situated in the fourth floor, in respect of which right, title and interest is sought to be claimed by the plaintiffs/land owners, which is denied by respondent No.3/builder. Defendant No.1 is the agreement holder in respect of an apartment in the second floor and defendant No.2 is the owner of an apartment in the third floor.

5. Vide IA.No.3/2024 the plaintiffs have sought for an injunction to restrain defendant Nos.1 and 2 from pasting any posters containing any message concerning the plaintiffs in the common areas of the apartment building. Vide the said application, plaintiffs allege that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are pasting various posters containing alleged false information which are prejudicial to the interest to the plaintiffs. In support of the said contention a memo dated 05.06.2025 has been filed by placing various photographs of such posters that have been pasted.

6. It is clear from the aforeme