SMT MUDDULAKSHMAMMA vs SRI S GURURAJU - 2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 49530

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 49530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

MFA NO.3120 OF 2022 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

Smt Muddulakshmamma
W/o Late Sacchidananda Murthy
Aged about 76 years
R/at No.46/1 & 2, II Floor
5^th Cross, 5^th Main, Malleshwaram
Bengaluru-03.
As she suffering from Dementia
AND represented by her
Next Friend and her younger son
Sri Nagendrakumar .S
S/o Late Sachidananda Murthy
Aged about 47 years
R/at No.46/1 & 2
Second Floor, 5^th Cross
5^th Main, Malleshwaram
Bengaluru-560 003.
&Appellant
(By Sri A. Lourdu Mariyappa, Advocate)

AND:

1.
Sri S Gururaju
S/o Late Sacchidananda Murthy
Aged about 58 years
No.31, First Main
Meenakshinagar, Kamakshipalya
Bengaluru-79.

2.
Smt Manjula
D/o Late Sacchidananda Murthy

:: 2 ::

Aged about 54 years
R/at No.33, 4^th Main
Ayyappa Reddy Thota
LIC Colony, Yeshwanthpura
Bengaluru-22.

3.
Smt Anusuya
W/o Srinivas
D/o Late Sacchidananda Murthy
Aged about 50 years
R/at Rathnamma Nilya
Veerappa Building, Nadanavana Street
Jogupalya, Halsoor
Bengaluru-08.

4.
Smt Mamatha

W/o Srinivas
D/o Late Sacchidananda Murthy
Aged about 45 years
No.276/1, 6^th B Cross
First Main, Jakkur Layout
Yelahanka
Bengaluru-560 064.

5.
N.Gopala

S/o Late Nadekerappa

Aged about 57 years

No.206/A

Aannapoorneshwarinagara

Arogya Extension

Vishwaneedum Post

Sunkadakatte

Bengaluru North-560091.

6.
P.U. Sudarshan Murthy

S/o Late P.N Ugrappa

Aged about 59 years
Chanisu Nilya, Kuvempunagara
Shiradi Saibabanagara
Belagumbha Road
Tumakuru-572103.

&Respondents

:: 3 ::

This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of
CPC, against the order dated 18.02.2022 passed on
I.A No.2 in O.S No.137/2022 on the file of the
Principal
Senior
Civil
Judge
and
JMFC,
Magadi,
Ramanagaram, issuing suit summons and not granted
temporary injunction.
[

This MFA coming on for admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:

Heard the appellant9s counsel at the time of

admission.

Appellant

the

plaintiff

O.S.No.137/2022 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Magadi. Though the appellant

has challenged the order dated 18.2.2022, in the

facts and circumstances, it may be stated that this

appeal

not

maintainable

for

the

following

reason:

3. The plaintiff9s suit is for declaration of title

and injunction. Because the plaintiff is stated to

:: 4 ::

mentally

insane,

her

friend

Muddalakshmamma presented the plaint along with

an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

On 18.2.2022, the said application was allowed

and permitted the next friend to prosecute the

suit. At that time, though the court below did not

grant an order of ex parte order of temporary

injunction, it inadvertently directed the plaintiff to

comply with Order 39 Rule 3(a) CPC and that the

plaintiff complied with it also. Thereafter on

behalf of the plaintiff, an application under section

151 CPC was made for police help. On 14.3.2022,

the court passed an order observing that since on

18.2.2022

injunction

order

was

passed,

question of allowing the application under section

151 CPC for police help did not arise and therefore

dismissed the application. Actually this is the

reason for the appellant preferring this appeal.

:: 5 ::

4. The order dated 18.2.2022 is very clear.

Ex parte order of temporary injunction was not

granted. If there was a direction to the plaintiff to

comply with Order 39 Rule 3(a) CPC, it was a

sheer mistake. If by taking advantage of this

direction, the plaintiff complied with Order 39 Rule

3(a) CPC, it does not mean that an order of

temporary injunction has been impliedly granted

the

court.

Actually

the

application

for

temporary injunction has remained undecided. In

this view I do not find any infirmity in the trial

court saying that plaintiff is not entitled to police

help.

When

the

application

for

temporary

injunction itself is not disposed of, this appeal is

not maintainable. Therefore appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document