Allowed

Smt. Padmavathi v. Smt. Sandhyarani. S

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2021MFA/1717/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal against an order granting temporary injunction. The bench found the trial Court erroneous for ignoring the first defendant's application while hearing only the plaintiff's. The matter was remanded to consider both applications together, and status quo was ordered pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside and remanded to the Trial Court for joint consideration of I.A.1 and I.A.2; status quo maintained.

Smt. Padmavathi Vs Smt. Sandhyarani. S — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA

¶5

M.F.A NO.1717 OF 2021(CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O M P KANTHRAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶8

SRI M.P.KANTHRAJU S/O PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.613 5^TH MAIN, RAILWAY LAYOUT 2^ND STAGE, NEAR VIDYANIKETHAN SCHOOL BANGALORE-560 056

¶10

...APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI.SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. SANDHYARANI. S W/O LATE SRIRAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.139, 5^TH MAIN ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT ULLAL MAIN ROAD MALLATHAHALLI BANGALORE-560 056

¶14

¶15

SRI SRINIASAMURTHY G S/O LATE H GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶16

SRI HANUMANTHRAJU B S/O LATE YELLAMMA GRANDSON OF LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶17

SRI GANGARAJU S/O LATE YELLAMMA GRANDSON OF LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶18

SMT RADHAMMA W/O LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶19

SMT GURUSHANTHAMMA W/O LATE H GANGAPPA AGED 61 YEARS

¶20

SMT G MOTAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶21

SMT GANGAMMA D/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶22

SMT RAMAKKA D/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶23

SMT LAKSHAMMA W/O MUTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶24

¶25

RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 10 RESIDING AT NO.110, 1^ST MAIN VALMIKI NAGARA BANGALORE-560 026

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. J.SATISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED.25.03.2021, PASSED ON IA NO.1, IN O.S.NO.1756/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-30), ALLOWING THE IA NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶29

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for injunction

¶32

on 10.3.2021 seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶33

It appears that on 9.3.2021 the first defendant had entered caveat. Notwithstanding the fact that caveat had been filed, it appears the trial Court proceeded to grant an exparte order of temporary injunction without noticing the caveat.

¶34

¶35

The first defendant is said to have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1(a) of CPC seeking for an injunction to restrain the plaintiff from putting up further construction. The fact that the said application is filed can be gathered from the statement made in that regard by the trial Court at page 3 of its order.

¶36

The trial Court is also stated to have granted an order of status-quo on the same day i.e. on 19.3.2021 in view of the submission that the filing of the caveat had not been noticed.

¶37

The trial Court by the impugned order dated 25.3.2021 has allowed the I.A.I and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

¶38

Sri.Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for

¶39

the appellant contended that though the trial Court noticed that the first defendant had filed an application

¶40

¶41

to restrain the plaintiff from putting up any further construction, the said application has not at all been considered. He submitted that since his application was not considered and only the application of the plaintiff was considered, the order passed by the trial Court was vitiated and cannot be sustained.

¶42

Sri.J. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent, on the other hand, supported the order of the trial Court and contended that since the first defendant was heard in the matter it will have to be understood that the application filed by the first defendant had been considered and rejected.

¶43

It cannot be in dispute that an application

¶44

was indeed filed by the first defendant requesting the trial Court to restrain the plaintiff from altering the nature of the suit schedule property. The fact that such an application was filed was also recorded in the body of

¶45

the impugned order. However, in the reasoning of the trail Court, there is absolutely no mention about the said

¶46

¶47

application and only the application filed by the plaintiff is considered.

¶48

In my view, the approach of the trial Court in considering only I.A.No.I and not considering the application filed by the first defendant is wholly erroneous. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to consider I.A.1 filed by the plaintiff and I.A.No.2 filed by the first defendant together and pass appropriate orders.

¶49

Since admittedly there is no approved plan in favour of the plaintiff, it would not be equitable or proper to permit the plaintiff to proceed with the further construction. Hence, both the parties shall maintain status quo till the disposal of the aforesaid applications.

¶50

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶51

¶52

The trial Court shall consider the applications

¶53

on or before 30^th June 2021 and if possible before the

¶54

start of the ensuing summer vacation.

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

*alb/-.

Smt. Padmavathi v. Smt. Sandhyarani. S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Padmavathi v. Smt. Sandhyarani. S

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

A Krishna Vs Smt. Jayamma

Sri Narasimhappa Vs Sri Gangareddy

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Prime Corporate Branch

M/S Karnataka Slum Development Board Vs Sri Lakshmikanth

M/S Karnataka Slum Development Board Vs Sri Lakshmikanth

S Nagabhushan Vs M/S. United Developers