A party who suppresses material facts regarding finalized statutory recovery proceedings and lacks actual possession (relying on non-party tenants) is disentitled to equitable relief of injunction, especially against an auction purchaser where no declaration of title is sought.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous first appeal is preferred by the defendant against the order dated 15.11.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.5061/2024 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant (appellant herein) from interfering with the alleged possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Brief facts:

2. The plaintiff instituted suit for permanent injunction claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule property on basis of partition. It is his case that, he has let out the property to tenants and continues to be in possession through them. The undisputed material on record discloses that the plaintiff had availed loan from the SLV Souharda Pattina Sahakari Niyamitha by mortgaging the suit property. Upon default, recovery proceedings were initiated culminating in an award dated 21.12.2020, followed by auction proceedings, wherein the appellant emerged as a highest bidder. A sale certificate dated 14.12.2023 was issued in favour of the appellant.

3. The challenge to the said proceedings had already attained finality in W.P. No.26112/2024 and in W.A. No.598/2025 preferred by the plaintiff. The Division Bench of this Court refused to grant interim order, despite the same, the application for injunction in the suit filed by the plaintiff was pressed and the impugned order of injunction was granted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has committed a serious error in granting injunction in favour of a person who has already lost both title and possession pursuant to lawful auction proceedings. It is submitted that the issuance of sale certificate vests with a valid title and rights in favour of the auction purchaser and therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for permanent injunction without seeking a declaration of title. It is brought to the notice of this Court, by the appellant by way of a memo dated 25.03.2026, that writ petition in W.P. No.26112/2024 filed by the respondent came to be dismissed on 12.03.2025 and that further proceedings, including writ appeal in W.A. No.598/2025, the Division Bench of this Court refused to grant an interim relief and the appeal preferred before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.30719/2025 was also dismissed and declined to interfere with the order dated 25.09.2025, refusing to grant interim order in W.A. No.598/2025.

5. It is submitted that all these developments have taken place during the pendency of the suit and prior to the passing of the impugned order of temporary injunction dated 15.11.2025 and these material facts were not brought to the notice of the Trial Court by the plaintiff while seeking an equitable relief of injunction. It is submitted that the present suit is an indirect attempt to circumvent those proceedings. The Trial Court has failed to consider that the plaintiff is not in actual possession and has relied upon a vague plea of tenants being in possession. Even assuming tenants are in possession, they are not parties to the suit and plaintiff cannot seek an injunction on their behalf. It is contended that the impugned order is perverse, illegal and contrar