The court upheld that a request for a stay of proceedings must have a valid basis, and cannot be granted when the matter is already adjudicated.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed this appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-45) in O.S.No.4809/2024, wherein the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff in the shape of I.A.No.1 filed under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC was discussed, seeking an ad interim order of stay, staying the further proceedings pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2022 passed by the LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-65) in OS.No.2309/2020 till disposal of the suit.

2. The learned trial Court, considering I.A.No.1, dismissed the same disbelieving the possession of the plaintiff. It is observed by the learned trial Court that, the plaintiff is claiming his right based on agreement of sale dated 12.05.1983.

3. The documents produced by the defendant establish that, his grandfather, namely Mylari @ M.Mylarappa, had gifted the suit property under the registered gift deed dated 25.03.2013.

4. Admittedly, the judgments in O.S.No.5501/2013 and O.S.No.2309/2020 were decreed in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff has challenged these judgments and decrees. It is further observed that, the relief sought by the plaintiff to stay the further proceedings pursuant of the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2022, the Court while exercising original jurisdiction cannot stay the judgment and decree that to which was passed in the year 2022.

5. It is further observed that, since the plaintiff seeks a stay of further proceedings in respect of a suit already decided, Section 10 of the CPC does not apply to the case on hand. So also by observing with regard to the essential components for grant of temporary injunction, has dismissed the application.

6. Strangely enough the appellant has filed an application in the shape of I.A.No.1 under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking an ad interim order of stay, seeking of further proceedings pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2022 passed by the LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.2309/2020.

7. The provisions of order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC reads as under;

"Order 39, Rule 1:

• This rule allows a court to grant a temporary injunction in several situations, including when:

o The property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit.

o The defendant threatens to dispose of or remove the property in dispute, thus causing injury to the plaintiff.

• The court can issue an order to restrain such actions or make any other necessary order to prevent the waste, damage, alienation, or disposal of the property.

Order 39, Rule 2:

• This rule specifically deals with injunctions to restrain the repetition or continuance of a breach of contract or other injury.

• If a plaintiff is seeking to prevent the defendant from breaching a contract or committing another kind of injury, they can apply for a temporary injunction under this rule.

• The injunction can be for restraining the specific breach or any other injury of a similar kind arising from the same contract or relating to the same property or right."

8. In view of the strict mandate of order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC , there is no scope to seek the relief of staying the further proceedings by filing I.A under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.2309/2020 and such prayer for temporary injunction cannot be granted. The relief sought by the plaintiff/appellant is misconceived. However, the liberty is given to the appellant to move an appropriate application seeking appropriate relief. Rightly the office has ra