ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard learned counsel Sri.Krishnamurthy K.R., on behalf of the petitioner-Society and learned senior counsel Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa appearing on behalf of the Sri.R.S.Subramanya Kaushik, learned counsel for Caveator/Respondent No.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 2. Parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants, as per their status before the trial Court. 3. This petition is filed by the plaintiff, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed in M.A.No.89/2025 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru, whereby the First Appellate Court set aside the order passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.175/2025 whereby the trial Court had allowed I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-Society, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit. The schedule is mentioned in the application as well. To this application, statement of objections was filed by the defendants. Upon hearing the contentions of both the parties, learned trial Judge granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-Society, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The same was challenged by defendants before the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.85/2025. On service of notice to the plaintiff, the same was heard and the Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the defendants, vacated the interim order granted by the trial Court and dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiff in toto. Consequently, allowed I.A.No.4 filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC for vacating the said interim order. It is this order of the Appellate Court which is questioned by the plaintiff before this Court. 5. Consequently, allowed I.A.No.4 filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC for vacating the said interim order. It is this order of the Appellate Court which is questioned by the plaintiff before this Court. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Krishnamurthy appearing on behalf of the plaintiff contended that the order passed by the Appellate Court is perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the Appellate Court has not considered the materials placed on record and misconstrued itself by misreading the rough sketch produced by the plaintiff and other materials placed on record. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the Appellant Court has ignored the well considered reasoned order passed by the trial Court while appreciating the materials placed on record and has exceeded its jurisdiction by vacating the interim order on vague and flimsy grounds without going through the records. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that even according to the defendants, the suit schedule property is unidentifiable. So also the defendants are not claiming the property belonging to the plaintiff and neither the plaintiff claiming the property of the defendants. Learned counsel further contends that the Appellate Court has failed to notice that the conversion order produced by the defendants which shows that on the eastern side of the property Bachhappa’s land in Sy.No.4/4B1 is situated and that there is no Rajakaluve is shown. Taking all these into consideration, learned trial Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that the matter requires to be heard and decided in the regular trial and granted an interim order of temporary injunction which is sustainable. The same has been ignored by the Appellate Court while setting aside the order of the trial Court. Learned counsel further contended that the Appellate Court committed an error in vacating the interim order and allowing the appeal filed by the defendants. 6. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the rough sketch produced by the plaintiff is self-serving and such appreciation is without application of mind to the contents of other materials, such as conversion and revenue records, approved layout plan produced by the plaintiff which itself would be sufficient to show prima facie case made out by the plaintiff for grant of interim order in its favour to protect its property. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Appellate Court has committed an error in concluding that the plaintiff is trying to usurp the canal belonging to the Government and the same is illegal and order is perverse and is required to be set aside. It is also contended that by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Appellate Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion the property No.4/4B1 comes only on the eastern side of the canal and on the western side of the canal, the plaintiff is not having any property would amount to prejudging the rights of the parties before venturing into evidence, which is bad in law and the same requires to be set aside. Learned counsel further contends that the Appellate Court has ignored the materials placed before the Court and the judgments and precedents of the this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding consideration of the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC which is the requirement of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury caused to the aggrieved party. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed several materials by way of memo, photographs and survey sketch to show the identification of the suit schedule property that of the property belonging to the defendants. On these grounds, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that, on the whole, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is perverse, illegal, contrary and requires to be set aside. 7. Learned senior counsel Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa appearing on behalf of the respondents/defendants vehemently contends that there is no illegality, perversity or error committed by the Appellate Court in the impugned order whereby it has allowed the appeal and consequently set aside the order of the trial Court, vacating the interim order passed by the trial Court and dismissing the application I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff’s suit is for bare injunction wherein the plaintiff had described the suit schedule property in the schedule. It is not a suit for declaration. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff’s suit is for bare injunction wherein the plaintiff had described the suit schedule property in the schedule. It is not a suit for declaration. Since the suit is for bare injunction, the plaintiff should come before the Court with clean hands and substantiate his case with regard to existing right for grant of an interim order of temporary injunction. 8. Learned senior counsel for the defendants contends that he has filed objections to the application I.A.No.1 so also written statement to the plaint. He has clearly stated in his written statement that the area of land in Sy.No.4/4B1 border is earmarked as park and no portion after the park is reserved in favour of the plaintiff-Society in the approved layout. Park is bounded by Rajakaluve. The Rajakaluve divides Survey No.4/4B1 and Survey No.4/2 and 4/3. It is further stated at paragraph 8, as is evident from the rough sketch produced by the plaintiff as part of the plaint, the plaintiff is making an unlawful claim and without any right or title, trying to lay a claim beyond the area marked as park. The portion marked as 10.5 guntas in the rough sketch is actually part of Survey number 4/2 and 4/3 and not survey number 4/4B1 as contended by the plaintiff. Further, at paragraph 15 of the written statement, the defendants have stated as under: “The Defendants have constructed a compound wall over the encompassing all the four sites purchased by them, way back in the year 2004 with an intention to protect the same. The defendants have also constructed a guard house in the property.” It is also stated at paragraph 18 that: “Thus, from the above narration it is clear that the plaintiff has not come before this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and is trying to use this Hon’ble Court with an ulterior motive to usurp the defendants’ property.” 9. The averments made by the defendants in the written statement and also objections to the application filed by the plaintiff, there is categorical denial of the statement in the plaint and the application. The averments made by the defendants in the written statement and also objections to the application filed by the plaintiff, there is categorical denial of the statement in the plaint and the application. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel for the defendants that when the plaintiff comes before this Court for grant of an interim order of temporary injunction to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, the plaintiff is bound to approach this Court with clean hands and make out a valid case by honest submissions, without suppressing any material facts. He further contends that the plaintiff has not stated anywhere that there is a canal or a Rajakaluve that is bifurcating its property beyond which also there exists portion of its property. Therefore, he contends that for suppression of these material facts, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any discretionary relief in its favour. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that the trial Court has not considered all these aspects which have been elaborately considered by the Appellate Court by looking into the documents produced and the materials placed before the Court and the fact that the plaintiff has suppressed certain material facts and not come before the Court with clean hands for claiming an order of injunction. On these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff as well as learned senior counsel for respondents/defendants. 11. Apparently, there is no dispute that the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction. The suit schedule property is clearly mentioned in the schedule. To the east of the suit schedule property, there is a public park developed by the plaintiff-Society. To the west, there is a property in Sy.No.4/2 and 4/3. Therefore, the plaintiff has to establish before this Court that a portion of the property to which he is trying to seek injunction belongs to him and he is in lawful possession of the same. 12. On the basis of the materials placed before the Court, i.e., Photographs including the sketch, no doubt it is seen that towards western side of plaintiff’s property as described by the plaintiff, he claims 10.5 guntas of land which is towards eastern side of defendants’ property. 12. On the basis of the materials placed before the Court, i.e., Photographs including the sketch, no doubt it is seen that towards western side of plaintiff’s property as described by the plaintiff, he claims 10.5 guntas of land which is towards eastern side of defendants’ property. By way of photographs, the documents produced by the plaintiff, it is seen that there is a steel barricade which is put in the property after which there is a canal/ Rajakaluve, after which there is a property which is compounded. Therefore, even by virtue of the documents produced by the plaintiff-Society, apparently it is seen prima facie that after the barricaded steel compound to the property shows the canal, thereafter compound wall, after which there is a vacant land which is claimed by the defendants to be their property in Sy.No.4/2 and 4/3. No material is placed by the plaintiff to show the plaintiff to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, apart from sketch and the plan. Admittedly, there is compound wall bifurcating the canal. In between the compound wall and the steel barricade, there is a canal. Therefore it cannot be said that the plaintiff is in possession of the property beyond compound wall which is claimed to have been put up by the plaintiff even in the statement and as per the photographs. 13. Of course, it is open for the plaintiff to establish that the property which is beyond the compound wall belongs to the plaintiff to an extent of 10.5 guntas. At the initial stage for grant of temporary injunction, the essential requirements are prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship that would be caused. I do not find any irregularity, perversity or arbitrariness in the order passed by the Appellate Court which has considered all the materials in detail and passed the impugned order allowing the appeal and rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Therefore, no good ground is made out nor cogent reasons assigned by the plaintiff calling for interference of this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Appellate Court. It is certainly open to the plaintiff to establish the fact of 10.5 guntas of land coming within the sale deed and sketch of the layout plan belonging to the plaintiff in the course of trial. 14. It is certainly open to the plaintiff to establish the fact of 10.5 guntas of land coming within the sale deed and sketch of the layout plan belonging to the plaintiff in the course of trial. 14. It is seen that the Appellate Court at paragraph 26 of the judgment has come to a conclusion with regard to the plaintiff having not produced the material that there is bifurcation of the land of the plaintiff and defendants by a canal is not in dispute which may not be correct as the plaintiff’s very case is that the property of the plaintiff extends beyond the canal. Paragraph No.33 may not be taken into consideration by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the matter and the plaintiff and defendants are at liberty to produce relevant materials before the Court, which shall be considered independently, without giving adjudicatory value to the observations made by the Appellate Court, in accordance with law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed, subject to the observations made by this Court.