In a partition suit, a court may order the reservation of specific property shares to prevent an eventual decree from becoming effectively unenforceable, especially when potential mass alienation of property during litigation threatens the rights of co-sharers, regardless of the doctrine of lis pendens.

CAV ORDER

This review petition is filed by the review petitioners, who are defendants No.5 and 19 in O.S.No.4625/2025 challenging the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Court of XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (C.C.H.No.6). The review petitioners were the appellants in MFA No.7416/2025, which was disposed of by this Court on 05.11.2025. The review petitioners have preferred this petition seeking review of the order dated 05.11.2025 passed by this Court in MFA No.7416/2025.

2. The appeal filed by the review petitioners in MFA No.7416/2025 was allowed in part by modifying the order dated 17.09.2025 passed in O.S.No.4625/2025 on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. This Court directed that the appellants in MFA No.7416/2025, who are defendants No.5 and 19 in O.S.No.4625/2025 shall reserve 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties in the name of plaintiffs and defendant No.25. The appellants/defendants were permitted to utilize other remaining respective shares and were further directed to furnish the details of apartments constructed over suit Item Nos.8 and 9 and to submit such particulars before the Trial Court, as ordered in MFA No.7416/2025.

3. Being aggrieved by the direction to reserve 1/4th share in the name of plaintiffs and defendant No.25, the present review petition is filed. According to the review petitioners, there ought not to have been any direction to reserve 1/4th share in favour of plaintiffs and defendant No.25.

4. This review petition is filed by raising various grounds, which are summarized as follows:

4.1 This Court has not taken note of the conduct of plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 and defendant No.25/respondent No.25;

4.2 That the defendant No.25 had filed suit earlier in O.S.No.2085/2021 and was unsuccessful in obtaining interim order of injunction and in the meantime, the respondents No.1 and 2 herein have filed suit in O.S.No.4625/2025 and in this suit, the plaintiff in O.S.No.2085/2021 is arrayed as defendant No.25 and later on, defendant No.25 has withdrawn the said suit OS.No.2085/2021;

4.3 It is contended that the above fact was suppressed in the subsequent suit in O.S.No.4625/2025. According to the review petitioners, such suppression amounts to misconduct on the part of plaintiffs and defendant No.25. It is further contended that filing of O.S.No.2085/2021 and O.S.No.4625/2025 seeking partition of the suit properties amounts to abuse of process of Court. Further, the review petitioners also contend that this Court while passing the order in MFA No.7416/2025 failed to extract and properly consider the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mandali Ranganna And Others vs. T Ramachandra And Others , ((2008) 11 SCC 1), regarding conduct of parties while considering grant of equitable relief of temporary injunction;

4.4 It is further contended that this Court erred in reserving 1/4th share in favour of plaintiffs and defendant No.25 despite there being an inordinate delay of 12 years in challenging the joint development agreement dated 08.08.2013. According to the review petitioners, permitting such reservation despite the delay constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record;

4.5 Further, the review petitioners contend that there is an error apparent on the face of record,