Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
Jyoti Mulimani
Hemalata, W/o Harok Thakor – Appellant
Versus
Vidhyavati, W/o Christoppher Rosario – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contested arguments surrounding the injunction. (Para 3) |
| 2. details of the lower court's orders. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural errors. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
Jyoti Mulimani, J.
Sri.Sachin M.Mahajan., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ravi B.Patil., counsel for respondents 1 to 7 and 26 to 28 have appeared in person.
2. The order dated 06.04.2024 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura on I.A.No.6 and I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.120/2021 vide Annexure-H is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
4. Suffice it to note that the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession. After the service of the summons, defendants 1 to 7 filed a written statement. It is noted that defendants 31 to 33 came on record on an impleading application. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to move an application in I.A.No.5 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction to restrain defendants 31 to 33 from alienating and changing the nat
Court must independently adjudicate temporary injunction applications, ensuring fair trial rights are upheld as per procedural laws.
A plaintiff may not file a replication to evidence produced by a defendant; such pleadings require court permission and must address new facts or contentions raised in written statements.
The court clarified that under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, filing a proposed replica is not a prerequisite for seeking leave to file a replication in response to new facts raised by the defendant.
The court affirmed its inherent authority to issue preservation orders under Article 227 and Section 151 of CPC, regardless of injunction criteria not being satisfied, emphasizing the maintenance of ....
The interpretation of Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC affirms the plaintiff's right to file a rejoinder to a written statement, ensuring fair opportunity to respond to the defendant's claims.
The main legal point established is that a fresh cause of action justifies the filing of a separate suit for temporary injunction, and the Court must consider the conduct of the parties and the princ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
