THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. IX IN R.A.NO.136/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING IA NO.IX FILED U/O. 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the defendants questioning the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed in R.A.No.136/2021 so far as it relates to IA No.9 filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.

2. The facts of the case are as follows.

The respondent was the plaintiff in O.S.No.76/2020, filed before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal. In the said suit, the appellant No.1 was the sole defendant. In the said suit, the sole defendant filed IA No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint for the reasons stated therein.

3. Upon contest, the said application came to be allowed vide dated 21.09.2021 partly and the Court directed the plaintiff therein to value the property as per the guidelines issued by the State of Karnataka and to file a fresh valuation failing which the plaint would stand automatically rejected. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned several times for the plaintiff to file the fresh valuation slip, which was not filed by the plaintiff, and in view of the non-filing of the valuation slip as ordered by the trial Court, the plaint came to be rejected vide order dated 08.10.2021.

4. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection of the plaint, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.136/2021 to set aside the said order of rejection of the plaint and restore the suit. During the pendency of the regular appeal, the plaintiff filed IA No.9 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to be decided along with the main appeal i.e. R.A.No.136/2021. The appellant herein was the defendant who filed objections to the said application. Upon contest, the regular appeal came to be allowed vide order dated 13.10.2025. The impugned order of the trial Court dated 08.10.2021 came to be set aside. The matter was remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to both parties to be heard on payment of court fees and valuation and then to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Simultaneously, the trial Court allowed IA.No.9 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and passed the following order

"Thereby the respondent no.2 is hereby restrained from alienating the suit property to anybody till disposal of the suit."

5. It is this order on IA.No.9 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC that is questioned by the appellant who was the original defendant before the trial Court. While filing the regular appeal, respondent No.2 was included, who was not a party in the original suit.

6. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order passed on IA No. 9 by the appellate Court is opposed to law, is perverse, arbitrary and illegal and the same requires to be set aside. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that while disposing of the said application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, no proper adjudication has been made as contemplated for deciding an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and no reasons are provided, and so also no findings to the effect of there being a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or for that matter the hardship that would be caused.

7. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellate Court has simultaneously allowed the application filed by the plaintiff in the regular appeal, despite passing a conditional order for remand, which is again perverse and illegal an