At the stage of granting a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the court must focus on preserving the subject matter of the suit rather than adjudicating on title or acquisition, which are matters for full trial.

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4367/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-9, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 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 by the plaintiffs calling in question the order dated 20.03.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.4367/2024 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-9) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected and the interim order earlier granted stands vacated.

Brief facts:

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. They instituted a suit for bare junction in respect of the suit schedule property bearing Survey No.45/3 measuring 10 guntas situated at Nagawara Village, contending that the said property fell to their share, pursuant to a compromise decree passed in O.S. No.25013/2007 and that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is their case that the respondents/defendants, who have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession and hence, the suit and the interlocutory application seeking temporary injunction came to be filed.

3. Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B.N. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Trial Court has committed a serious error in rejecting the application by entering into the questions relating to title and acquisition, which are matters to be decided only at the trial. It is further contended that the appellants are in settled possession of the suit schedule property and the respondents claim pertains to Sy. No.38/1, which is distinct from Sy. No.45/3. It is submitted that the Commissioner, appointed during the pendency of the appeal, has submitted a report, however, the said report has been specifically objected by the appellants.

4. Per contra, Sri Venkatachalapathi S.K., learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the appellants have failed to establish a prima facie case of possession over the suit schedule property. It is the contention that the respondents are owners of the property bearing Survey No.38/1 and the appellants are attempting to lay claim over the same by creating confusion with regard to the boundaries and survey number. It is further contended that the property in question is subject to acquisition proceedings and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference by this Court?”

6. The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case and the documents produced by the defendants indicate acquisition and vesting of the property and that the plaintiffs have not established possession over the suit schedule property and the balance of convenience lies in favour