IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3310 OF 2021 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. S.V. GANESH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SRI. VENKATAPPA RESIDING AT NO. 8, ROGER'S ROAD RICHARDS TOWN BENGALURU - 560 005.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. B RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE BALAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT VENKATESHWARA NILAYA ROJIPURA, COURT ROAD, DIVISION NO.27, Digitally signed by RAMYA D DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203 Location: …RESPONDENT HIGH COURT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

OF KARNATAKA THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF DsRLHOKoAAiFIgcGnMateNtaYdlC byOD:UKRT CPC,1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2021 PASSED ON I.A. NO.I IN O.S.NO. 415/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR, ALLOWING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S. No.415/2020 dated 24.02.2021 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapur, whereby the trial court has granted an order of temporary injunction against the defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. It is the case made out by the plaintiff that the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property and plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.07.2013 for total sale consideration of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and also executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff. Upon allegation that the defendant has not come forward to execute the registered sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of contract and obtained an ad-interim temporary injunction against the defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property or creating any charge of third party interest over the suit property.

4. Being aggrieved by this order, the defendant has preferred the present appeal.

5. Though the respondent/plaintiff is served with the notice, he is remained absent.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the agreement of sale is executed on 11.07.2013, but the suit is filed in the year 2020. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. Further, submitted that the plaintiff has not come forward to get registered sale deed. Therefore, the defendant has issued legal notice and thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the suit. Also, it is submitted that the defendant has revoked General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the plaintiff. Further, it is submitted that the defendant has reimbursed the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no valid subsistence of agreement of sale, but without considering all these materials, the trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction. Hence, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court.

7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and perused the materials furnished in the appeal.

8. The following points arises for consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court?

(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff make out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?

(iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted then plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury?

9. The suit is filed for specific pe