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. 7726 OF 2019 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAJU S/O SRI PONNA PUJARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.9-4/2, 6^TH CROSS, MASJID ROAD, OLD OKALIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 021.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. T PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S NAVAKAR REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:

NO.22/1, MADARSAB LANE, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M COTTONPET, Location: HIGH COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 053.

KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, SRI SUSHIL KUMAR AND MR NOORULLA.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED. 19.02.2019, PASSED ON IA.NO.I, IN O.S. NO.7501/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.I, FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the defendant calling in question the order dated 19.02.2019 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.7501/2018 on the file of LV111 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.No.59) (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff and granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the construction of the compound wall around the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

Brief facts

2. The plaintiff has instituted the suit seeking decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, claiming to be the absolute owner in possession having acquired title under a registered sale deed dated

09.05.2014 and having obtained sanction plan for construction. It is the case of the plaintiff that while he was putting up construction, the defendant interfered and obstructed the same without any manner of right. The plaintiff therefore, filed I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant.

3. The defendant entered appearance and contested the application contending that there exists a public road on the northern side of the suit property, which is the only access to his property, and that the plaintiff is attempting to encroach upon the said road. The trial Court, upon consideration of the materials placed on record, allowed the application and granted temporary injunction.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court failed to consider that a public road of 5.80 meters exists on the northern side of the suit property and the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and has not correctly described the boundaries of the suit property. It is submitted that the plaintiff is attempting to encroach upon the public road by putting up a compound wall. Further, it is contended that the trial Court has ignored the City Survey records, documentary evidence showing existence of the road, and that the plaintiff has made unauthorised construction.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff contends that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession supported by the registered sale deed and revenue records. It is contended that there is no road on the northern side of the property and the defendant is making false claims to interfere with lawful construction. It is also contended that the defendant had earlier failed in obtaining injunction and is now causing obstruction and that the plaintiff has established a prima-

facie case and balance of convenience lies in his favour.

6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged and perused the materials placed on record.

7. The point that arises for consideration is that whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court warrants any interference.

8. T