Court ruled that a separate suit for injunction cannot be maintained when a related title suit is pending, allowing the appellants to seek relief through the existing suit.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellants being plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1156/2024 have preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 03.09.2024 passed on IA Nos.1 and 3 by the XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

2. The plaintiffs have described the suit schedule property in the schedule appending to the plaint. O.S.No.1156/2024 has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their man, relatives etc., from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in any manner.

3. In the said suit, IA No.1 was filed seeking temporary injunction. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the plaintiffs have filed similar suit in O.S.No.6662/2018 seeking relief of partition and separate possession to grant 1/5^th share each to the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property by dividing the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. The copy of the plaint is produced by the appellants at Annexure-G.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel Sri.M.J.Alva for the appellants that, the appellant No.2, the wife of Sri.Srinivas.N., arrayed as appellant No.2 is not a party in O.S.No.6662/2018.

5. Learned counsel Sri.Srikanth.S., for respondents submits that, when already a title suit in O.S.No.6662/2018 is pending on the file of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, the appellants could not maintain O.S.No.1156/2024 seeking the bare relief of injunction. Remedy is very much available to the plaintiffs to seek a similar relief in the said suit as against the defendants.

6. I have scrupulously perused the plaint averments in O.S.No.6662/2018 as well as plaint averments in O.S.No.1156/2024. Evidently O.S.No.6662/2018 is the title suit and the plaintiffs therein have claimed the same as 1/5^th share each in the suit schedule property. No doubt, appellant No.2 is not a party to the said suit. The plaintiffs in the said suit can very well implead the appellant No.2 in the said suit so as to avoid technicalities. When a partition suit is pending before the City Civil Court between the same parties, the similar plaintiffs cannot maintain a parallel suit in O.S.No.1156/2024 and seek the injunctive relief. This suit can be termed as an interlocutory application.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated supra, this appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellants to seek similar relief in the said title suit, which would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

8. However, the liberty is given to the appellants to seek similar relief if advised. The appellants are permitted to bring the present appellant No.2 on record in the said suit by filing appropriate application.