Back
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4782/2022 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S PIONIER GARDENIA PHASE - II
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.48, 2ND FLOOR, I-STAR BLDG
100FT RING ROAD, 4TH BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034
REP BY ITS PARTNER
SMT. KAVITHA V REDDY
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O SRI A RAMA REDDY.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT NEELAMMA
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O LATE CHINTHANAPPA @ CHINNAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 125.
2.
SRI C RAVI KUMAR
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O LATE CHINTHANAPPA @ CHINNAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
- 2 -
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 125.
3.
SMT. RADHA
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O LATE CHINTHANAPPA @ CHINNAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 125.
4.
SMT. CHINNAMMA
AGED 76 YEARS
W/O LATE MUNIKAVERAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 125.
5.
SMT. RATHNAMMA
AGED 56 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNIKAVERAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 125.
6.
SMT. RENUKAMMA
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNIKAVERAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 125.
- 3 -
7.
SMT. HEMAVATHI
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O LATE MANJUNATH
S/O LATE MUNIKAVERAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
8.
SRI RAMAKRISHNA
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
9.
SMT. NAGAMMA
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
10.
SRI PUTTAPPA @ NAGARAJ
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 125.
11.
SMT. KANAKAMMA
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
- 4 -
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
12.
SMT. KAMALAMMA
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O LATE T YELLAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
13.
SMT. ARUNA
AGED 51 YEARS
D/O LATE T YELLAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
14.
SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O LATE T YELLAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
15.
SMT. KAMALAMMA
AGED 47 YEARS
D/O LATE T YELLAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
- 5 -
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
16.
SMT. KRISHNALEELA
AGED 44 YEARS
D/O LATE T YELLAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
17.
SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
AGED 41 YEARS
D/O LATE T YELLAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
18.
SRI SHIVAKUMAR
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O LATE T YELLAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
19.
SRI VINODA
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O LATE T YELLAPPA
GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562125.
- 6 -
20.
SRI DHARANAESH V H
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH
NO.78, 2ND CROSS,
JAI MARUTHI NAGAR
NANDINI LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 096.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR
R1 TO R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO.1 AND 4 DATED13.04.2022
PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND 4 IN O.S.NO.16/2021 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC,
ANEKAL.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON
FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
One of the defendants in O.S.No.16/2021 on the
file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Anekal (for short ‘the civil Court’) has impugned the civil
Court’s order dated 13.04.2022. The impugned order in
all its parts reads as under:
"Amended plaint copy furnished in
duplicate.
- 7 -
No representation for the defendants.
Inspite of service of notice, the defendants have
not filed any objection.
Heard on IA No.1 and 4. Perused the
records. At this stage the plaintiffs have made
out a prima-facie case and shown that the very
purpose of filing the suit and applications
would be defeated if an interim order is not
grant. Hence, in order to avoid such things and
to protect the interest of the plaintiffs, an order
of temporary injunction is necessary. Hence,
the following.
ORDER
The IA No.1 and 4 filed by the
plainiffs(sic) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w
Section 151 of CPC are hereby allowed.
The defendants No.15, 17 and 18, their
men, agents and all those persons claiming
through or under them are hereby restrained
by an order of temporary injunction from
alienating or encumbering the item No.1 of the
suit property, changing the nature or puting(sic)
up construction in the said property in any
manner till further orders or till disposal of the
suit whichever is earlier.
Issue suit summons to defendants
No.17 and 18 if PF paid. Call on:- 14.06.2022"
2.
The
civil
Court
has
disposed
of
the
substantial applications viz., IA.1 and IA.4 under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC restraining not only the
appellant, but also his vendors from alienating the
lands that are converted from agricultural to non-
- 8 -
agricultural purposes in Sy.No.52/1 measuring 1 acre
38 guntas including 4 guntas of kharab of Ghatahalli
village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru
District and the land in Sy.No.82/1 measuring 33
guntas including 1 gunta of kharab of Ghatahalli
village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru
District.
3.
Sri V.B. Shivakumar, the learned Counsel
for the appellant, submits that the civil Court has failed
even to refer to the respective claims. The respondents -
plaintiffs, notwithstanding the registered transfers
commencing from the year 2016 with the sale deed
dated 27.10.2016, have filed for partition without even
adverting to the registered transactions except for
stating that the revenue records have been obtained
without their knowledge and to defeat their claim.
Though the civil Court refers to the prima facie case,
and in some manner refers to balance of convenience and
- 9 -
irreparable injury, it could hardly be called any
consideration when there is no reference to the
questions raised in the pleadings.
4.
Sri Prakash T Hebbar, the learned counsel
for respondents No.1 to 3 [the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3],
submits that though the civil Court has allowed both
the applications viz., IA.1 and IA.4, the application in
IA.1 is filed only against the defendant No.15 and not
against the appellant, who is the defendant No.17. As
such, the appellant’s appeal even as against the
impugned
order
insofar
as
this
application
is
incompetent and therefore this Court must not
intervene.
5.
It would suffice for this Court to observe, on
a reading of the extracted order, that the civil Court
could not have dealt with the applications in the
manner it has dealt with especially without even
noticing whether the pleadings are complete. The
- 10 -
appellant’s case is that the written statement was filed
on 14.06.2022. It is too trite to even reiterate that the
applications for temporary injunction must be decided
based on the affidavits and the pleadings and not
otherwise.
6.
The impugned order which apparently falls
short of this requirement cannot be sustained and must
be
quashed
without
the
technicalities
impeding
adjudication of the applications in accordance with law,
especially the application for temporary injunction
which arguably could have far reaching consequences,
as required in law. The civil Court
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
