SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1907

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
Sri. P. Nataraju, Since Deceased By His Lrs,- Smt. B. Eswaramma, (W/o. Late Sri P. Nataraj) and Ors. – Petitioners 
Versus
Sri. S. Venkataram, S/o. Late Sri. Y. Subba Rao and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 15995 of 2022 (GM-CPC) 
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Nandish Gowda G.B., Adv.
For the Respondents: Sri. M.M. Prashantha, Adv.

The court emphasized the need for timely resolution of applications in legal proceedings, directing the Trial Court to address the pending injunction application within a specified time to uphold justice.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - Writ petition for a mandamus to compel Trial Court to consider and dispose of a temporary injunction application that had been pending for over six years - Court directed the Trial Court to consider and dispose of application without delay, citing the undue delay as central to its decision. (Paras 2, 4, 5, 6)

(B) Delay in adjudication - The prolonged inaction of the Trial Court over a significant period necessitates intervention by the High Court to uphold justice and expedite proceedings. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to compel the Trial Court to rule on applications for a temporary injunction regarding suit schedule A-property filed nearly six years prior.

Findings of Court:
After reviewing the delays and inaction, the court mandated the Trial Court to decide on the pending application within two months from the order.

Issues: The main issue was the failure of the Trial Court to address the plaintiff's requests in a timely manner, leading to the necessity for High Court intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the principle of timely justice, asserting that undue delay in judicial proceedings can impair the integrity of the legal process and necessitate intervention.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Trial Court.

Table of Content
1. writ petition for trial court's direction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. defendants argue application has become infructuous. (Para 3)
3. pending applications not addressed for six years. (Para 4 , 5)
4. court directs trial court to expedite decision. (Para 6)

ORDER :

S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Trial Court to dispose of applications filed on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.620/2010 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC vide Annexures-J and K.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that application vide Annexure-J under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed on 26.07.2010. Subsequently seeking similar relief, yet another application has been filed on 11.07.2019. The Trial Court has not passed orders on both the applications. He submits that he does not press his prayer made in the application vide Annexure-J and he would be satisfied if the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the application dated 11.07.2019 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC vide Annexure-K.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that prayer made in the application has been rendered infructuous having regard to the subsequent developments.

4. Be that as it may, fact remains that the applications which are filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.620/2010 vide Annexures-J and K dated 26.07.2010 and dated 11.07.2019 have not been disposed of by the Trial Court as on this date. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he would not press relief sought for in the petition, insofar as Annexure-J is concerned and he would be satisfied if the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of application at Annexure-K dated 11.07.2019.

5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the application vide Annexure-K dated 11.07.2019 has been filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC on behalf of the plaintiff seeking an order of temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from changing the nature of the suit schedule A-property. According to the plaintiffs, the contesting defendants have already filed objections to the same. If that is so, it is for the Trial Court to consider the said application and dispose of the same at the earliest. The said application has been pending consideration before the Trial Court for the last six years. In normal circumstances, this Court will not issue a direction to the Trial Court to consider application and dispose of the same.

6. However, having regard to the fact that no orders are passed on the applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff even after the lapse of more than six years, this Court is constrained to issue a direction to the Trial Court to Consider Annexure-K and dispose of the same within time frame. Accordingly the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Trial Court to consider and dispose of application filed on behalf of the plaintiff vide Annexure-K dated 11.07.2019 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read Section 151 of CPC as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top