MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5524 OF 2026 (CPC)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO. 5339/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-1) FILED U/O 39 RULE 3(a) OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging impugned order dated 25.07.2026 passed by Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-1) on IA no.I in OS no.5339/2026, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Angad Kamath, learned counsel for appellants submitted that appellants were defendants in suit filed by respondent - plaintiff (Trust). It was submitted that defendants had entered caveat on 02.07.2026 in Caveat Petition no.2960/2026 of impending suit or application for temporary injunction that may be filed by plaintiff. But, when plaintiff filed OS no.5339/2026 on 23.07.2026, Registry did not put-up caveat filed by defendants and though very prayer sought in suit i.e. to declare Election of defendants and other persons as office bearers of Trust as illegal and not binding on it, would indicate that process of Election was completed, without consideration an order was passed by trial Court granting ex- parte temporary injunction restraining defendants, their agents, supporters or anybody claiming under them from interfering with administrative functions of Trust including its social and religious activities, till next date of hearing. Same would virtually amount to perpetrating an illegality as earlier office bearers whose term of office had expired several years ago would be permitted to continue to administer Trust by overlooking elected office bearers.

3. Apart from above, it was submitted very plaintiff had stated about existence of arbitration clause in Trust deed and sought for reference to arbitration. It was submitted that plaintiff had suppressed that it had filed Arbitration Application no.42/2026 for interim measure under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 18.07.2026 and failed to obtain interim order, had resorted to filing of suit. Relying upon document by Election Officer declaring defendants and others as elected office bearers of Trust, it was submitted that intention in filing suit was to disrupt religious activities in holy period of Chaturmaas and withdraw huge amounts of Trust kept in Fixed Deposits etc. Therefore, it was imperative for this Court to set-aside impugned order in view of above facts and circumstances.

4. Sri A. Abhinav Ramanand, learned counsel appears through Video Conferencing for Sri H.S. Kumar, advocate submits, though Caveat is filed by plaintiff after filing of appeal, he would accept notice for respondent and oppose appeal/application for interim relief. He also submitted that appeal itself may be disposed of by passing appropriate orders especially as Appeal was against ex-parte order of temporary injunction, wherein defendants had remedy of approaching same Court and seek for vacating order of temporary injunction.

5. Producing several documents along with Memo, it was submitted taking note of arbitration award dated 14.10.2011, OS no.7452/2001 was disposed of. Said award was regard to governance of Trust.

6. Even subsequent dispute was resolved through Arbitration in Arbitration Case no.171/2018 dated 18.10.2019 which provided for manner of Election of office bearers of Trust and duration of their term. It was sought to be contended that due to death of some of Founding Trustees, process of co- option of new members was delayed and same had in turn delayed holding of elections. Such being case, as there were reports of Election being held without following procedure laid down in award, plaintiff was constrained to file suit. It was submitted, on consideration of averments in plaint and application for temporary injunction and referring