MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9220 OF 2025 (CPC)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.7102/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-7), DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

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 preferred by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 31.10.2025 on I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.7102/2023 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected I.A. No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and allowed I.A. No.2 filed by the defendant.

It is pertinent to note that the present appeal is directed only against the rejection of I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff. The order allowing I.A.No.2 filed by the defendant has not been challenged and has attained finality.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator/respondent.

Brief facts:

The plaintiff instituted suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property described as schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties as set out hereunder:

“SCHEDULE A PROPERTY

Flat bearing No.001(A block) in Ground floor, constructed over the Schedule ‘A’ property containing two bedrooms along with one car parking bearing No.1 (A Block) and the super built up area, measuring 1140 sq.ft. of the apartment known as “DS-MAX SLIVER NEST APARTMENTS”, located at Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.

East by : Sy.No.27 West by : Road

North by : Private property South by : Private property

SCHEDULE B PROPERTY

The car parking slot No.001, located at A-Block, “DS-MAX SLIVER NEST APARTMENTS”, Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.

East by : Driveway 12’0 West by : Flat No.309 North by : Flat No.101

South by : Driveway 16’6.”

Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction. Initially, the Trial Court granted an ex parte temporary injunction on 08.12.2023.

Upon appearance, defendant filed I.A.No.2 and after hearing both sides, the Trial Court rejected I.A. No.1 and allowed I.A.No.2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has erroneously appreciated the material on record. It is submitted that finding that the plaintiff repainted the parking number is unsupported by evidence. It is further contended that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, which is totally failed to be considered by the Trial Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order and submits that the defendant purchased the property early in 2011, much prior to the plaintiff’s purchase. The parking was allotted under the registered sale deed dated 30.11.2011. In the absence of the defendant, the plaintiff repainted the parking number and interfered with the possession. It is submitted that the Trial Court, having considered all these aspects, has rejected the application by a well-reasoned order, which does not warrant any interference.

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions 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?”

It is not in dispute that both the parties filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The order passed on I.A.No.2 filed by the defendant has a