The court reaffirms that the grant of temporary injunctions requires established criteria including prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm; undue delay undermines claims for urgency.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Sri. Pratik Pany, counsel for the appellants, and Sri. V.Srinivas, counsel for respondents 34 and 35, appeared in person.

2. The captioned appeal is filed to set aside the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Court of XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore (CCH 36) on IA Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1673/2024.

As this is an appeal filed under Order 43, the scope of inquiry is limited only to the impugned order arising from the interlocutory application, and does not extend to the merits of the main suit.

3. For convenience’s the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a decree directing the defendants to effect partition and put them in separate possession of their 1/3^rd share in the schedule immovable property. To declare that the compromise dated 05.10.2002 obtained by defendant No.22 in O.S.No.4309/2002 is not binding on their share. To declare the gift deed dated 30.04.2003 is not binding on their share. To declare that the sale deed dated:22.12.2003 is not binding on their share, and for a declaration that the withdrawal of the suit in O.S.No.2395/2005 is not binding on their share and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

Defendants Nos.34 and 35 filed the written statement, and notably, they adopted the contentions and averments made in the Written Statement as their objections to the Plaintiff's Temporary Injunction Application (IA) and prayed for the dismissal of the application. The Trial Court, in its order dated:22.07.2025, dismissed the application. Under these circumstances, the appellants have filed the above appeal on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Appeal. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Counsel for respondents 34 and 35 placed reliance on the following decision.

SMT.UMA DEVI AND OTHERS VS SRI.ANAND KUMAR AND OTHERS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2137/ 2025.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

6. Is the Trial Court justified in rejecting the application?

7. Before addressing this point directly, we should first briefly review the basics of a temporary injunction.

An injunction is a judicial proceeding whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, any particular act. It is a remedy in the form of an order of the Court addressed to the particular person that either prohibits him from doing or continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction), or orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction).

Injunctions are of two kinds:

(i) Temporary and

(ii) Permanent.

A permanent injunction restrains a party forever from doing the specified act and can be granted only on the merits at the conclusion of the trial after hearing both parties to the suit. On the other hand, a temporary or interim injunction restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until further orders of the Court. It is regulated by the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may be granted at any stage of the suit.

Before granting the temporary injunction, the following considerations are required to be satisfied:

(i) There is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

(ii) That irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated for in terms of money.

(iii) That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

(iv) The conduct of the plaintiff should be fair and honest.

8. Acknowledging the background, the factual data present the following picture.

9.