IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2606 OF 2024 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

MR. SARWAR HUSSAIN MIR, W/O GHULAM MUSTAFA MIR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO. 9/5, EAGLE STREET, LONGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 025.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M.D AND LEGAL AXIS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S. DEONE MARKETING SERVICE REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS DIRECTORS (A) SRI SITARAMARAJU MANTHENA S/O RAMAM MANTHENA Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NAGARAJA B M Location: H IGH COURT OF (B) SRI SREEHARI RAJU SAGIRAJU KARNATAKA S/O SANGIRAJU KRUSHNA RAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 13, 2ND FLOOR, PARIPOORNA LAYOUT, PHASE-3, RAJANUKUNTE, YELHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

2. MR. SYED HAMEEDUL HASSAN, S/O MIR NEKHON ALI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

3. MR. MIR MUJEEB RAZA S/O MIR VAJID ALI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 4. MR. SYED ZAMIN RAJA S/O SHEKHAWAT HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4 ARE R/AT ALIPURA VILLAGE, THONDE- BHAVI HOBLI, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALAPUR DIST. - 561 211.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH H.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A AND B);

SRI. SHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 PASSED ON IA IN OS.NO.357/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GAURIBIDANUR, ALLOWING THE IA FILED U/O VII RULE

11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order impugned rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff by applying the provisions of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, (for short, 'Act').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction simplicitor in O.S.357/2024 against the defendants. The plaintiff is tracing right over the property in question based on a registered GPA in favour of the plaintiff dated 11.03.2019. Along with the registered GPA, the plaintiff has also specifically claimed that the original owners executed an agreement to sell on 08.09.2015, followed by a supplementary agreement of sale dated 08.03.2019. The present suit is filed alleging that defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property and they are interfering and therefore a suit for injunction is filed.

4. Defendant No.2, on receipt of summons, has tendered appearance and filled an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a and d) of the CPC contending that plaintiff's suit for injunction is hit by the provisions of section 41(h) of the Act and therefore, sought for rejection of the plaint.

5. Learned Judge has heard the plaintiff's counsel and defendants counsel on application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a and d). The learned Judge accepting the objections raised by dependent No.2, has rejected the plaint on the ground that the relief sought in the plaint is hit by provisions of section 41(h) of the Act. The said rejection of plaint is under challenge.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo, vehemently argues and contends that the plaintiff, apart from securing two agreements, has also obtained a registered GPA from the original owner, which is coupled with interest and the entire sale consideration is paid and therefore, the defendants, being strangers, cannot interfere and therefore, he would point out that the provisions of section 41(h) are not at all applicable to the case on hand since the plaintiff is not seeking an injunction against the owners but against strangers. Referring to Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, he would point out that the registered GPA obtained by the plaintiff from the original owners is coupled with interest and the entire sale consideration is paid and therefore, learned Judge erred in app