Disposed

Sri N. Shanmukhaswamy v. Sri K.C Prasad

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2014WP/50804/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash an appellate order that vacated an injunction. The court directed maintenance of status quo and expedited the underlying suit within eight months to prevent injustice in a property dispute.

What did the court decide?

Parties to maintain status quo; trial court directed to expedite suit completion within eight months from receipt of copy.

Sri N. Shanmukhaswamy Vs Sri K.C Prasad — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.50804 OF 2013 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. N. Shanmukhaswamy, Son of Sri. J.C.Nanjundaswamy, 51 years, residing at No.7, 6^th Main, Kengeri Extension, Bangalore – 560 060.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. R.B.Sadasivappa, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Sri. K.C.Prasad, Son of Late Smt. Sarojamma, Aged about 31 years,

¶13

Sri. Maruthi, Son of Late Smt. Sarojamma, Aged about 29 years,

¶14

Sri. Ravindra, Son of Late Smt. Sarojamma, Aged about 27 years,

¶15

¶16

Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are Residing at Chennenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mysore District – 571 438.

¶17

Smt. K.C. Jayanthi, Daughter of Late Smt. Sarojamma, Aged about 25 years, Resident of Kamalapura Village, Attiguppe Post, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagaram District – 562 117.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Shri. Nitish, Advocate for Shri. S.G. Chaitanya, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent No.1

¶20

Vide court order dated 25.3.2014 respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are deemed to have been served)

¶21

¶22

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna) in M.A.No.2/2013 vide Annexure-J and consequently confirm the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the trial court i.e., Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srirangapatna on I.A.1 in O.S.No.4/2011.

¶23

This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶24

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

A serious dispute, as to the manner in which the defendants are said to have derived the property by virtue of their mother having given up her absolute right and having agreed that she would have only life interest by virtue of a compromise entered into in an earlier suit filed by the defendants, which, whether or not is valid, can be a question for consideration. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court having granted an injunction order and the appellate Court having vacated the same, would require this court to interfere in this unusual circumstance to prevent injustice and since this court has already passed an order of status-quo, the parties shall maintain status-quo till the disposal of the suit. Since it is necessary that the matter be adjudicated finally, the trial court is directed to expedite the consideration of the suit and endeavour to complete proceedings within a period of eight months, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

¶28

With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶29

Sd/- JUDGE

¶30

Sri N. Shanmukhaswamy v. Sri K.C Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N. Shanmukhaswamy v. Sri K.C Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Krishna S Tavildar Vs Sri Syed Basheer

Jayanthilal N Shah Vs Rajkumar Menon

Shaik Khasim Since Deceased by Lrs Vs Smt Khatija Bi

Smt Venkatalakshmamma Vs Sri G Venkatesh

Sri B Venugopal Vs Smt v M Sumithra

K.M. Ramesha Vs K.G. Siddaraju