HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
SMT ROOPA D – Appellant
Versus
SMT ROHINI SINDHURI I A S – Respondent
ORDER
The point to be answered in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is :
“If the plaintiff who has secured an exparte order of temporary injunction fails to comply with requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, should the court vacate the order of temporary injunction?”
2. Given a look at the events that led to this writ petition being filed, the Additional City Civil Judge, (CCH- 74), Bengaluru, in O.S.25288/2023, a suit for damages in relation to alleged defamation, passed an exparte order of temporary injunction on 23.2.2023 against defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 60 and directed respondent no.1 who is the plaintiff in the suit to comply with requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 CPC. The plaintiff filed an affidavit before the court reporting compliance, but there was no compliance as regards the petitioner herein, who is defendant no.60 in the suit. After she received the suit summons and appeared before the court on 7.3.2023, she brought to the notice of the court by filing a memo that there was no compliance and requested the court not to extend the exparte temporary injunction. The plainti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.