ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard learned counsel Sri.A. Madhusudhana Rao on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff. 2. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondent/defendant, as notice to the respondent/defendant was not served before the trial Court on the application. 3. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he has filed a suit in OS.No.1097/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kanakapura, for the relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs against the respondent/ defendant in respect to the land bearing Survey No. 218/6, measuring 2 acres 27 guntas, along with 5 guntas of kharab land situated at Cheeluru Village, Maralawadi Hobli, earlier Kanakpura Taluk, now Harohalli Taluk. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that a registered deed dated 15.09.2025 came to be executed in favour of the respondent/defendant fraudulently, which is not binding on her, whereas the petitioner/plaintiff was not in India at that time, and she has been residing in the United States of America. She has produced a passport copy to show that she had departed from India on 10.08.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further contends that originally the suit schedule property belonged to one Honnegowda S/o Dasegowda. The property was sold to one Smt.Saraswathamma for a valuable consideration of Rs.60,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 12.10.1992. Thereafter the property was sold in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 and the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any interference from anyone. 6. This being the state of affairs, suddenly the petitioner/plaintiff has realized that there is a registered sale deed dated 15.09.2025, which is fraudulently executed by impersonating the petitioner/plaintiff in the alleged sale deed which has not been executed or entered into by the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff is in custody of the original documents of the sale deed from 12.10.1992 to 27.02.2006. The mutation entries are in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff so also the RTC entries reflect the name of the petitioner. Petitioner had shifted her residence to USA recently in August 2024, to be precise, on 10.08.2024. 7. The petitioner/plaintiff is in custody of the original documents of the sale deed from 12.10.1992 to 27.02.2006. The mutation entries are in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff so also the RTC entries reflect the name of the petitioner. Petitioner had shifted her residence to USA recently in August 2024, to be precise, on 10.08.2024. 7. But however, the fraudulent sale deed has been executed by the respondent/defendant on 15.09.2025, showing the petitioner/plaintiff has entered into a registered sale deed with the respondent/defendant, which is a concocted and fraudulent document by impersonating some other person to be that of the petitioner. So also the brother of the petitioner/plaintiff is fraudulently shown as a witness to the said sale deed. 8. After coming to know of this fraudulent, concocted sale deed executed in favour of the respondent; the petitioner filed a complaint against the said person, who is respondent/defendant on 30.09.2025 and also against two unknown persons under the provisions of Sections 318, 319, 336 of BNS 2023, which is registered in Crime No. 148/2025 before the Kanakapura Police Station. 9. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that after concocting and fraudulently creating the sale deed, the respondent/defendant has gone further ahead to the survey authorities seeking surveying of the land and for 'hadhbast'. This has forced the petitioner/plaintiff to file the original suit seeking the relief of declaration and consequential reliefs. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed two applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an ad-interim ex- parte order of temporary injunction from interfering with the petitioner's/plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and to restrain the respondent/defendant from alienating the suit schedule properties in any manner to any third party during the pendency of the suit proceedings. 10. The trial Court, vide its order dated 28.10.2025 passed an order on IA No.2 and granted an order of ad- interim temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from alienating the suit schedule property till the next date of hearing. However, on the application filed under IA No.1 seeking not to interfere, the trial Court has merely issued notice on IA No.1 and not passed any order. However, on the application filed under IA No.1 seeking not to interfere, the trial Court has merely issued notice on IA No.1 and not passed any order. Hence, for non-passing of the order on IA No.1 to restrain the respondent/defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of petitioner/plaintiff, the petitioner is being aggrieved and is before this court. 11. This petition is entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the reason that the trial Court has not passed any order on the application file under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, except for issuance of notice on the application-IA.No.1. 12. Apparently, on a bare perusal of the application and the plaint averments, it is seen IA.No.1 came to be filed by the petitioner along with the suit to restrain the respondent/defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and the schedule having been mentioned in the application as well as the suit measuring to an extent of 2 acres 27 guntas. 13. It is averred and pleaded in the plaint as well as in the affidavit annexed to the application that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner, of the suit schedule property. She is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The mutation entries are in her name. The sale deed is produced to show she is the absolute owner and they are taking advantage of the situation that the petitioner/plaintiff has travelled to the United States of America in the month of August 2024; the respondent/defendant has created a fraudulent sale deed by impersonating the petitioner and the brother of the petitioner as a witness in the sale deed dated 15.09.2025. 14. On coming to know of the fact, the petitioner has already filed a complaint on 30.09.2025 which is registered in Crime No. 148/2025 before the Kanakapura Police Station limits, where the respondent/defendant has been arrayed as accused No.3 and some unknown persons as accused Nos.1 and 2. 14. On coming to know of the fact, the petitioner has already filed a complaint on 30.09.2025 which is registered in Crime No. 148/2025 before the Kanakapura Police Station limits, where the respondent/defendant has been arrayed as accused No.3 and some unknown persons as accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also pleaded and contended that the respondent/defendant on the basis of the illegal, fabricated, concocted sale deed, is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, which is an agricultural land measuring 2 acres 27 guntas in Survey No. 218/6 along with 5 guntas of Kharab land situated at Cheeluru Village, Maralawadi Hobli, earlier Kanakpura Taluk, now Haraholli Taluk, Bangalore South District. 15. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the respondent/defendant has absolutely no manner of right title, or interest over the suit schedule property. A fabricated sale deed is created, which appears to be concocted on the bare perusal of the photographs shown of that of the person in the sale deed and that of the petitioner in her passport, which is annexed to this petition and also annexed along with the plaint. The trial Court has believed the version of the petitioner and has granted an ad interim order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. 16. While considering an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, the essential fundamental requirement to be seen by the Court is a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and hardship that would be caused to the aggrieved party if an order is not granted. It is also required that while passing the order ex-parte prior to issuance of the notice to the defendant the Court has to be satisfied that in case of delay in passing the order, there would be a breach, violation, damage to the property and also to the rights of the defendant. Petitioner/plaintiff over the suit schedule property and there would be a threat of either interference or dispossession or alienation over the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. 17. Petitioner/plaintiff over the suit schedule property and there would be a threat of either interference or dispossession or alienation over the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. 17. In the present case on hand, on the basis of the materials produced by the petitioner/plaintiff, it is apparently clear that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same by way of a registered sale deed. The documents have been mutated, revenue records are in her name so also is the RTC and she has travelled to the United States of America in the year of August 2024. According to her, a sale deed has surfaced on 15.09.2025 which shows that the plaintiff had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant while she was not even in India and that the brother of the plaintiff is shown to be a witness. All these matters would have to be decided in the trial after the appearance of the defendant. But what the Court would have to see prior to the issuance of notice is, if an order is not passed, whether it will infringe the rights and liberty of the petitioner with regard to the suit schedule property and whether damage and threat would be caused to the suit schedule property and that of the plaintiff and so also an interference over the suit schedule property by the plaintiff on the basis of the alleged, concocted, fabricated sale deed. The trial Court has already granted an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. The trial Court has not passed the order with regard to IA No.1 for restraint of the respondent/defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 18. In a vacant land, what is required to be seen by the trial Court is the documents of title and the mutation entries made as possession follows title. Both the title documents and the mutation entries are in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff. An allegation is made of fraud and impersonation against the defendant. 19. It would be open to the respondent/defendant on appearance to file necessary applications or objections to the application IA Nos.1 and 2 to defend his case and put forth before the Court as to why the order requires to be vacated or modified or varied. An allegation is made of fraud and impersonation against the defendant. 19. It would be open to the respondent/defendant on appearance to file necessary applications or objections to the application IA Nos.1 and 2 to defend his case and put forth before the Court as to why the order requires to be vacated or modified or varied. This Court is of the view that an order of temporary injunction requires to be granted in favour of the plaintiff as the prima facie case is made out, the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and much hardship and inconvenience would be caused to the plaintiff if an interim order is not granted. 20. Under the circumstances, the possession follows title, the fundamental rule of law. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate that the protection requires to be granted to the plaintiff on an urgent interim basis failing which there would be interference and damage and threat and unnecessary interference in the suit schedule property of the plaintiff due to the delay in issuance of notice. Under the circumstances. I pass the following order. ORDER The petition is allowed. 2. An ad-interim ex-parte, order of temporary injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff. Respondent/defendant is hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the application schedule property measuring to an extent of 2 acres 27 guntas with 5 guntas of karab land in Survey No. 218/6. Situated at Cheeluru Village, Maralawadi Hobli, earlier Kanakpura Taluk, now Harohalli Taluk, Bangalore South District, till the next date of hearing. 3. The respondent/defendant is at liberty to file objections and seek for vacation of the interim order. It is made clear that this court has passed this order and the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of deciding the ad- interim ex-parte temporary injunction application and not otherwise. 4. The trial Court is at liberty to deal with the application on the appearance of the defendant in accordance with law on its own merits and the documents, if any, placed. 5. Ordered accordingly. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC before this Court. 7. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter.