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

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 22630

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
SMT ROOPA D – Appellant
Versus
SMT ROHINI SINDHURI I A S – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE ,Respondent Advocate:

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

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top