ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard Smt.Susheela, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nagesh Vinay S. for petitioner and Sri S.V.Giridhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in O.S.No.268/2016, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.08.2025 passed in M.A.No.7/2025 by VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 18.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.XIII in O.S.No.268/2016 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru. 4. The plaintiff had initiated a suit against the defendants for declaration and other consequential benefit. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff had filed an application in I.A.No.XIII under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein he sought for an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.2, 4 to 6, 8 to 15, their agents, henchmen, servants, supporters or any other person or persons, claiming any right under or through them, from interfering with the schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The objections were filed by the contesting defendants. 5. After hearing the arguments on the said application, the trial Court dismissed the same, which came to be challenged by the plaintiff before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.7/2025, whereby the Appellate Court had dismissed the said appeal and confirmed order passed by the trial Court. 6. It is the vehement contention of Smt.Susheela, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the materials placed on record. It is also contended that the trial Court has erroneously passed an order without application of mind and proper appreciation of the materials placed on the record. Despite several documents produced by the plaintiff before the trial Court to show that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and is in a settled possession and also the fact that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the same and erroneously passed the impugned order rejecting the application for grant of an order of temporary injunction. 6.1. 6.1. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further contended that there is no dispute with regard to the plaintiff being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, as defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the counterclaim, in fact, sought for nullification of the Sale Deed dated 07.08.2014. The plaintiff had purchased the property for a valuable consideration from defendant Nos.1 and 2, which has been conveniently ignored by the trial Court. 6.2. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate certain other facts with regard to the plaintiff being in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as owner since 07.08.2014, which is clearly depicted in the revenue records such as the RTC and his name is reflected in the suit schedule property in M.R.No.T50/2020-21 and that the plaintiff has been paying property tax to the concerned Authority along with the electricity connection, which is in the name of the plaintiff. These facts clearly show that pursuant to the registered Sale Deed dated 07.08.2014, the plaintiff has been paying the taxes on the property and has electricity connection to the suit schedule property, which is self- evident of the fact that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Apart from this, it is contended that the revenue records also depict the name of the plaintiff, which clearly established that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 6.3. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that while considering an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, the trial Court is required to see as to whether prima facie case is made out, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused to the party. In the case on hand, the plaintiff who filed the application has produced relevant and necessary documents to prove that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed and subsequent revenue documents thereafter. 6.4. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further contended that defendant No.7 had filed a suit in O.S.No.1125/2012, wherein an application was filed by defendant No.7, who was the plaintiff in the aforementioned suit seeking an order of temporary injunction. 6.4. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further contended that defendant No.7 had filed a suit in O.S.No.1125/2012, wherein an application was filed by defendant No.7, who was the plaintiff in the aforementioned suit seeking an order of temporary injunction. In the said proceedings, the trial Court, vide order dated 26.11.2021, has rejected the application filed by the said defendant No.7 and her mother, who was the plaintiffs in the original suit in O.S.No.1125/2012 by observing that the plaintiff herein is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel relied upon this observation made by the trial Court in the earlier proceedings to show that even in the earlier proceedings, the plaintiff is shown to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, due to which the temporary injunction sought by defendant No.7, the plaintiff therein came to be rejected. 6.5. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that defendant No.7 filed an appeal in M.A.No.50/2021 before IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru challenging rejection of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC before the trial Court, which also came to be rejected. Therefore, the order passed has attained finality and no temporary injunction was granted. However, an observation was made, as stated hereinabove, that the plaintiff herein was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further contended that despite bringing these facts to the notice of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the same has been ignored and conveniently brushed aside, the interim order of temporary injunction sought by petitioner has been rejected, which is contrary to the materials placed on record and which is against the principles of natural justice and the requirements of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. On these grounds, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner seeks to allow the petition, consequently, allow I.A.No.XIII by granting an order of temporary injunction. 7. On these grounds, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner seeks to allow the petition, consequently, allow I.A.No.XIII by granting an order of temporary injunction. 7. Per contra, Sri S.V.Giridhar, learned counsel for respondents vehemently contended that the plaintiff has not come before the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts and in fact, has tried to obtain an order by way of fraudulent methods, mischievously from the hands of this Court in the earlier round of litigation in the order passed on IA in O.S.No.1125/2012 and also filing a writ petition in W.P.No.5707/2023 (GM- POLICE), wherein the petitioner herein also filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus or a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to grant police protection to the petitioner against respondent Nos.4 to 7 and their family members, who are trying to restrain the petitioner from enjoying the possession and enjoyment of the property bearing survey No.105 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas situated at Hinkal village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru District. The said petition came to be filed by the petitioner and an order was obtained behind the back of the respondents and aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed a review petition before the very same Court, bringing to the knowledge of this Court the mischief, the fraud and creating of documents to obtain an order behind the back of the respondents only on the pretext that defendant No.7 who had filed the suit was unable to obtain the order of temporary injunction and since the observation was made with regard to the plaintiff being in possession, the prayer was granted. In the review petition, the plaintiff herein filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the writ petition itself and accepting the same, the review petition came to be allowed by accepting the memo of withdrawal filed by the plaintiff, who was a petitioner in the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be disposed of as withdrawn. Consequently, the review petition was also disposed of. However, an observation was made that any order passed by this Court or observations made therein, are all expunged. 7.1. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be disposed of as withdrawn. Consequently, the review petition was also disposed of. However, an observation was made that any order passed by this Court or observations made therein, are all expunged. 7.1. Learned counsel for respondents further contended that when the plaintiff comes before the Court seeking an order of temporary injunction, the plaintiff will have to come before the Court with clean hands and has to make out a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused. In the present case, the plaintiff has not come with clean hands. Despite having knowledge of earlier proceedings and having purchased the suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 and 2 and despite there being an interim order operating against defendant Nos. 1 and 2, they cannot claim equitable remedy under discretionary relief. Hence, he seeks dismissal of this petition, as the plaintiff has suppressed material facts. 8. I have heard learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for defendants. 9. The points that would arise for consideration are that: "1) Whether the impugned orders passed by the trial Court and the first appellant Court require interference? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a grant of temporary injunction?" 10. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 07.08.2014 from defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit, i.e., Ramanna @ Ramegowda and Siddanna @ Siddegowda. Thereafter, the revenue records are transferred into the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by conducting certain activities, such as agriculture. 11. It is further seen that there is collusion between the defendants and therefore, they are now trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is also not in dispute with regard to the original suit, which was filed in O.S..No.1125/2012 by defendant No.7 against the plaintiff herein, who was defendant No.11 in the original suit mentioned hereinabove and an application was also filed seeking an order of temporary injunction, which came to be rejected. 12. It is apparently not in dispute, as it is a matter of record that in para-36 of the order passed in O.S.No.1125/2012, the trial Court stated as under: “36. 12. It is apparently not in dispute, as it is a matter of record that in para-36 of the order passed in O.S.No.1125/2012, the trial Court stated as under: “36. The defendant No.11 counsel vehemently argued on the I.A on the basis of the written statement, affidavit which is annexed with I.A. and seek grant of temporary injunction till disposal of the suit as prayed in the application.” 13. The order of the trial Court in O.S.No.1125/2012 and the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC came to be challenged by defendant No.7 in M.A.No.50/2021. However, the same was not appreciated and it came to be dismissed. Therefore, the findings passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.1125/2012 to the extent that defendant No.11 therein (i.e., the plaintiff and petitioner herein) being in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with revenue records standing in his name, are not reversed or set aside. 14. No doubt, it is true that the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5707/2023 and in the review petition, the same is withdrawn by filing a memo. The conduct and otherwise of the plaintiff would have to be considered. What is required to be considered in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC are the three essential requirements namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused to the applicant. It is a settled proposition of law that even a person who is a trespasser is entitled to an order of temporary injunction against others. 15. In the present case, the plaintiff has produced a registered Sale Deed dated 07.08.2014 to show that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had sold the property in his favour and the khata, tax paid receipts and the mutations are transferred into the name of the plaintiff. The possession of the plaintiff and the revenue records standing in the name of the plaintiff are observed by the trial Court in O.S.No.1125/2012. Therefore, it is apparently seen that the plaintiff has made out necessary requirements for grant of an order of temporary injunction. The possession of the plaintiff and the revenue records standing in the name of the plaintiff are observed by the trial Court in O.S.No.1125/2012. Therefore, it is apparently seen that the plaintiff has made out necessary requirements for grant of an order of temporary injunction. Of course, it is needless to mention that what is decided in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is only a prima facie case and not a prima facie title; the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the plaintiff in view of the registered Sale Deed and the revenue records standing in his name. So also, the possession is stated by virtue of the previous order and rejection of the temporary injunction against defendant No.7, who was the plaintiff in the earlier suit and hardship and inconvenience would be caused more to the plaintiff rather than the defendants. 16. Under the circumstance, the trial Court ought to have granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff rather than rejecting it. The Appellate Court has also ignored all these documents, which are placed on record and certain observations made by the trial Court including non-denial of registered Sale Deed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. 17. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.XIII in O.S.No.268/2016 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order dated 23.08.2025 passed in M.A.No.7/2025 by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, is also set aside; iii. I.A.No.XIII filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff, is hereby allowed. Defendant Nos.2, 4 to 6, 8 to 15 are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; iv. It is needless to mention that the observations made by this Court are solely for the purpose of deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC; v. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter or title or rights of the parties; vi. It is needless to mention that the observations made by this Court are solely for the purpose of deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC; v. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter or title or rights of the parties; vi. During the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that any change in the nature of the suit schedule property or any construction or development, the petitioner would not claim any equity and the same is placed on record.