IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6735 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI BABU R S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA R. M.

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 4/A, GAYATHRI TAPOVANA ROAD, BESIDE ANANDA KUTEERA APARTMENTS, PAVAMANA NAGARA J.P. NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, BANGALORE -560078.

2. SRI. SANJAYA T. K.

S/O KUMARA AGED ABAOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, LIBRARY ROAD, THALAGHATTAPURA, BANGALORE-560062.

Digitally signed by …APPELLANTS MAHALAKSHMI B M (BY SRI. VARUN J PATIL., ADVOCATE AND Location: HIGH SRI A. MAHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O DHARMAVEERA L, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 36, 3RD CROSS, KONANAKUNTE CROSS, KONANAKUNTE, BANGALORE-560062.

2. SRI. SATHISH H. R S/O LATE RAMAKRISHANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. NO 121/1, 7TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPETE, BANGALORE-560018.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H. C., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S V/O DT.21.01.2026)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.2251/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA.NO. 2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908.

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 filed calling in question the order dated 03.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.2251/2025 on the file of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

Brief facts:

2. Respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted O.S.No.2251/2025 seeking relief of permanent injunction contending that she is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as tenant under respondent No.2/defendant pursuant to a lease agreement dated 25.02.2015. It is her case that she has paid substantial amounts towards advance and rent and the lease was periodically extended and continued to subsist, and that the defendant attempted to dispossess her forcibly.

3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction. Upon service of summons, the defendant failed to appear and was therefore placed ex parte and by order dated 03.07.2025 granted temporary injunction.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the present appellants claim to have acquired right, title and interest over the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 29.07.2025 executed in their favour by their vendor. The appellants contended that their vendor derived title to the property through a decree of specific performance passed in O.S.No.4494/2008, whereby the original owners had agreed to sell the property. Pursuant to the decree, in execution proceedings, a registered sale deed dated 31.01.2019 was executed in favour of the said vendor namely Sri Santhosh B., who was also put in possession of the property through Court process. Thereafter, the said Santhosh B., being absolute owner, conveyed the property in favour of the appellants under a registered sale deed. It is the grievance of the appellants that despite their acquisition of title, the plaintiff instituted the suit without impleading either the said Santhosh B., or the present appellants and the Trial Court proceeded to grant an order of temporary injunction without considering the impleading application filed by the appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the appellants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, having derived title through the vendor Sri Santhosh B., who in turn acquired title pursuant to a decree of