IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4450 OF 2024 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. K. B. PUSHPA W/O G.K. VENKATESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.38, “MUGILU”, 10^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, LEGGERE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 088. …APPELLANT (BY SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. SUDHA .S W/O THIMMEGOWDA .T, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.814, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M BEHIND ANJINEYA TEMPLE, Location: HIGH GANGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, COURT OF BANGALORE SOUTH, KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 039. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MURTHY K., ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, 1908, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.05.2024 ONE PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.834/2023, FURTHER PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER VACATING THE STATUS QUO GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT ONE FILE BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the defendant calling in question, the Order dated 30.05.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.834/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

Brief facts:

2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 05.12.2022 in respect of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that a portion of the sale consideration was paid and despite repeated requests, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed and was attempting to alienate the property.

3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. The Trial Court upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, allowed the said application and granted an order of temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the defendant.

4. Heard Sri T. Sheshagiri Rao and Sri Sunil S.

Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Murthy K., learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Trial Court has erred in granting injunction without properly appreciating that the plaintiff has failed to perform her part of contract within the stipulated time and the time was the essence of contract. It is contended that the Trial Court has misread the terms of agreement and the endorsement extending time and has erroneously concluded that the prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiff.

6. On instructions from appellant/defendant, it is submitted that the appellant is not intending to alienate the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

7. The said submission is taken on record.

8. On perusal of the impugned order and material on record, it is evident that the Trial Court has taken into consideration the execution of the agreement of sale and the receipt of part of the sale consideration by defendant. The Trial Court has framed the relevant points for consideration and recorded a finding on the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. It is observed that the dispute between the parties with regard to the performance of contract including the question as to whether the time was the essence of contract and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of contract are the matters that require adjudication in course of trial.

9. The Trial Court has held that if the defendant is permitted to alienate the suit property, it would result in multiplicity o