Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J
SMT. MANJULA – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. temporary injunction requires a prima facie case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments from both sides on possession and rights. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on legal ownership and title. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. necessity of showing balance of convenience for injunctions. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. final dismissal reinforces lower court's findings. (Para 11) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The appellant herein has preferred the present Misc.First appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC , 1908 challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 2.9.2024 passed by the 40th Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-41) in OS No.5669/2024. By the said impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the appellant's application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendants therein who are the respondents in the present appeal from dispossessing her from the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the original suit.
2. The appellant, who was the plaintiff before the trial Court had instituted the suit seeking relief of declaration that, the registered sale deed dat
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
