PURAVANKARA LTD v. SRI KRISHNAPPA
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: H.P.SANDESH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2024-12-19. PURAVANKARA LTD v. SRI KRISHNAPPA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
- 1 - MFA No. 7931 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 19 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H. P. SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7931 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. PURAVANKARA LTD. , A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANEIS ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 130/1, ULSOOR ROAD BANGALORE-560 043 RERPESNETED BY ITS AUTHORIZES SIGNATORY MS. SHREYA V. K. JAIN. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KRISHNAPPA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M S/O LATE LINGAPPA Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. SMT. PREMA D/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. SMT. MALATHI D/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS - 2 - MFA No. 7931 of 2024 5. SMT. SWETHA W/O LATE VASANTHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. MASTER SUMANTH S/O LATE VASANTHA AGED MINOR RERPESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 5 HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN 7.
MASTER UDBHAV S/O LATE VASANTHA AGED MAJOR REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 5 HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN 8. SMT. REKHA D/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 9. SMT. PAVITHRA D/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 9 ALL RESIDING AT THALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE POLICE STATION ROAD KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGLAORE-560 019. 10. SRI LAKSHMAN S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 548 TH 4 MAIN ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE-560 086. 11. SRI SHIVALINGAIAH S/O SHIVAMADEVAIAH - 3 - MFA No. 7931 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NEAR SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE VENKATAPURA MAIN ROAD KARNATAKA DEVELOPERS COLONY BENGALURU-560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, A/W SRI PARIKSHITH MALIYE & SRI SANDESH C. R. , ADVOCATES FOR SRI D. S. JAYARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05. 11. 2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 2 IN O. S. NO.
1929/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU, ISSUE EXPARTE ORDER OF AD-INTERIM TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, EMERGENT NOTICE ON IA NO. II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. P. SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is filed against ad-interim exparte injunction granted by the Trial Court. This Court vide order dated 12. 12. 2024 stayed the impugned ad-interim exparte temporary injunction granted considering the judgment of this Court reported in VEDANT FASHIONS PVT. LTD. VS. SMT. RAJUL DEVI reported in 2014 SCC ONLINE KAR 7191 as - 4 - MFA No. 7931 of 2024 well as judgment passed in M. F. A. NO. 5034/2014 dated 20. 08. 2014 and so also the judgment in MR. R. K. JAIN VS. SRI P. G. CHACKO reported in AIR 2013 KAR 142.
Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments as well as considering the order passed by the Trial Court, this Court comes to the conclusion that no reasoned order has been passed in compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. 3. Now, learned counsel for the respondents appeared before this Court and learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the matter may be remitted to the Trial Court to consider the same within 15 days on merits and they will file written statement and objections before the Trial Court immediately. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order passed by the Trial Court is not to alienate the suit schedule property and the same will not come in the way of the appellant to keep the order till disposal of I. A. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents, when this Court has already granted stay of the impugned order, in coming to the - 5 - MFA No.
7931 of 2024 conclusion that there is no compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, the question of ustaining the order passed by the Trial Court, till disposal does not arise having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred (supra). Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. However, taking note of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the appellant that they will file written statement and objections immediately, the matter may be disposed of by the Trial Court within 15. 01. 2025. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the order impugned is sustainable in the eye of law cannot be accepted. 6. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The miscellaneous first appeal is disposed of. (ii) The case pending before the Trial Court can be advanced to 06. 01. 2025 and the matter shall be heard and the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the same within 15. 01. 2025.
- 6 - MFA No. 7931 of 2024 (iii) The order passed by this Court will be in force, till disposal of I. A. on merits. Sd/- (H. P. SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No. : 1 Sl No. : 21
Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.