Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 816 OF 2019 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M RANGANATH S/O LATE T MUNIPAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.114 BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 076 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI N JAYARAM S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NO.320/E, 9TH A MAIN Digitally signed by 40TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK GEETHAKUMARI JAYANAGAR PARLATTAYA S BENGALURU-560 041.
Location: High Court of Karnataka 2. SRI RAMDAS AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O MUNEERAPPA
3. SRI MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA DEFENDANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU-560 076.
4. SMT S RATHNAMMA D/O LATE SHAMANNA W/O L GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
5. SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
6. SRI S RAMESH S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
7. SMT RADHA D/O LATE SHAMANNA W/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
8. SMT MANJULA D/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
9. SMT PRAMILA D/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
10. SRI VENKATESH B S S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
11. SMT HARILAXMI D/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
12. SMT RAMAKKA D/O LATE MUNEERAPPA W/O GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
13. SMT MUNIRATHNA D/O MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
14. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
15. SRI M SHANKAR S/O MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
16. SRI NAGARAJU S/O K H MUNIYAPPA AND LATE YELLAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
17. SRI KRISHNA S/O K H MUNIYAPPA AND LATE YELLAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
18. SMT PADMA @ PADMAVATHI D/O K H MUNIYAPPA AND LATE YELLAMMA W/O RAMDAS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
19. SMT LAKSHMI W/O LATE VENKATESH D/O K H MUNIYAPPA AND LATE YELLAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
20. MASTER JEEVAN S/O LATE VENKATESH AND LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT LAKSHMI
21. SMT SHAKUNTHALA D/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 22. SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
23. KUMARI LEELAVATHI D/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT BILEKAHALLI
24. SMT MUNAMMA @ MUNIYAMMA @
MUNIAMMAL D/O LATE MUNEERAPPA W/O KAMALA KANNAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
25. SMT SAROJAMMA D/O LATE MUNEERAPPA W/O YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
26. BABY SUPRIYA D/O RAMDAS AND PADMA @ PADMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS BEING MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT PADMA @ PADMAVATHI
27. BABY MANDARA D/O RAMDAS AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS BEING MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT PADMA @ PADMAVATHI
28. SMT M MANJULA D/O LATE MUNEERAPPA W/O GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BILEKAHALLI BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 076 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH A S FOR C/R1.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2018, PASSED ON IA.NOS.1 AND 3, IN O.S. NO.25721/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, (CCH-20), BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA NOS.1 AND 3 RILED U/O.39 RULES-1 & 2 R/W. SEC.151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against order dated 18.12.2018 passed by XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.25721/2018 on I.A.Nos.1 and
3 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
2. It was submitted that suit was filed by plaintiff for partition, wherein I.A.nos.1 and 3 were filed for temporary injunction restraining defendants from alienating suit schedule property and from changing nature of suit schedule property during pendency of suit. Trial Court had initially granted ex-parte ad-interm injunction. On appearance of defendants, they were heard and rejected by impugned order.
3. It was submitted that present appeal was filed on
23.01.2019 and is pending without any interim order. In meanwhile, suit had progressed to stage of trial. Since, suit was of year 2018 and more than five years old, Sri H.R.Anantha Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for appellant submitted on instructions that appellant would be satisfied, if appeal is disposed of by directing trial Court to expedite disposal of suit.
4. Sri Mahesh A.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that respondent No.1 would co-
operate for early disposal of suit.
5. In view of submission, testing legality of order would not be necessary. Appeal is disposed of directing trial Court to dispose of suit as far as possible within a period of six months by setting specific timeline for each stage of suit and by avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
6. It is clarified that observations/ findings of Trial Court in impugned order would not bind it at time of disposal.
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
