IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5446 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. T.A. LATHA W/O LATE SRI T.N. ASHOK, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, COFFEE PLANTER, R/O PAIS COMPOUND BESIDE MALNAD E.N.T. HOSPITAL, CHIKMAGALUR CITY.

…APPELLANT (BY MS. DAFNY MONALISA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARSH S. PAREKH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI T.D. ESHWAR S/O SRI T.N. RAVISHANKAR, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Location: HIGH COFFEE PLANTER, COURT OF KARNATAKA R/O SEETHALA VILAS, THOGARIHANKAL ESTATE, THOGARIHANKAL VILLAGE, JAGARA HOBLI, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK.

2. SRI T.N. RAVI SHANKAR S/O SRI T.B. NANJUNDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, COFFEE PLANTER, R/O SEETHALA VILAS, THOGARIHANKAL ESTATE, THOGARIHANKAL VILLAGE, JAGARA HOBLI, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUSHA A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.162/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru (‘the Trial Court’ for short) in OS No. 162/2022, whereby I.A.No. 5 filed by the defendant No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The suit is instituted seeking declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that the property is a joint family property. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 filed I.A. No. 5 seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the schedule property. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, dismissed the said application holding that defendant No. 1 had failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the appellant is in lawful possession of her share in the suit schedule property by virtue of partition and succession. It is contended that the Trial Court has erroneously appreciated the material on record and failed to consider the documentary evidence such as partition and RTC extract. It is contended that the appellant has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in her favour and denial of injunction would result in irreparable injury, especially when the property is a source of livelihood.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 contends that the application filed by the defendant No. 1 itself was not maintainable in law as the relief sought falls under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) and (c) CPC, which are available only to the plaintiff. It is submitted that a defendant cannot seek injunction against the plaintiff without filing a counter claim or independent proceedings. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shakunthalamma and Others v. Smt. Kanthamma and Others, ILR 2014 KAR 6025 (Shakunthalamma), wherein it is categorically held that a defendant can maintain an

application only under Rule 1(a) of Order XXXIX and not under Rule 1(b) or (c). It is further contended that Rule 1(a) of Order XXXIX applies to, “any party”, whereas clause (b) and (c) specifically contemplate acts of the defendant against the plainti