M.SURESH Vs. VINAY BAFNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for appellants and respondents in both the appeals.

(2.) These two appeals are filed by appellants/plaintiffs against the order dtd. 10/9/2024 on the file of XXVII Adddl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru (CCH-9) for rejection of application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC in O.S.No.3277/2024 and O.S.No.3278/2024. The factual aspects of both the cases are similar against the same respondents, but appellants are different and reasons given by the Trial Court is similar and hence taken up both the appeals together for common consideration.

(3.) The appellants in M.F.A.No.6478/2024 in the interlocutory application, in a suit for permanent injunction, sought the relief of temporary injunction against the respondents contending that the property morefully described in the schedule which measures 4494 sq.ft by virtue of rent agreement dtd. 20/9/2018 executed by M.S.Venkatesh, the previous land lord of 'A' schedule property, the plaintiff came into possession and enjoyment of the suit 'B' schedule property as a tenant, he has paid the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 and monthly rent is Rs.32,500.00 and during the subsistence of the lease agreement, owner of the property approached defendant Nos.1 and 2 for a hand loan in view of his financial exigencies and offered the property as security by way of execution of registered sale deed dtd. 18/1/2022 but, the defendants have attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from 'B' schedule property and hence filed the suit and also sought for the interim relief.