Allowed

Ravikumar v. Smt. Swati Priya

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2021RFA/390/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bengaluru allowed the appeal filed under Section 96 CPC against a partially decreed suit for permanent injunction. The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court, directing the lower court to give defendants an opportunity to contest and dispose of the case within six months, imposing costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; matter remanded to trial court with instruction to grant opportunity to defendants and dispose within six months.

Ravikumar Vs Smt. Swati Priya — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶5

R.F.A.No.390/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAVIKUMAR S/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶8

SRI UMESH S/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶9

SMT. YELLAMMA W/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶10

SRI NARAYANA REDDY S/O ABBAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

¶11

ALL APPELLANTS R/A No.1603, DEVARACHIKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, CHEEMASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶12

..APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI NIKHIL S.K, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. SWATI PRIYA

¶16

¶17

W/O MANOJ KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶18

SRI SATISH KUMAR S/O RAMESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶19

BOTH R/A BO.24, MANNAT, BTM RESIDENCY PHASE-2, YELCHENAHALLI AKSHAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 062.

¶20

..RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI H R SANJEEVE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2019 PASSED IN O.S.No.4484/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

With the consent of the learned counsel

¶26

appearing for the parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

¶28

Appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 16.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.4484/2019 by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, wherein the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction came to be partly decreed and defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the physical peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. Suit Schedule property is as under:

¶29

All that piece and parcel of the residential vacant site property bearing site No.98, presently bearing BBMP Khatha No.351/98, formed by BDA, in Sy.No.50/4, measuring East to West: 18.28 Mtrs. or 60 ft. and North to South: 9.14 Mtrs. or 30 ft., in all measuring 167.07 sq. mtrs., or 1,800 sq. ft. situated in 2^nd block, BTM 4^th stage of BDA layout and within the limits of BBMP, Bilekahalli Ward No.188, Bengaluru and bounded on the

¶30

East by : Road

¶31

¶32

West by : Site No.97 North by: Site No.97/A South by: Site No.99

¶33

Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and

¶34

decree the defendants are in appeal under Section 96 CPC.

¶35

In order to avoid confusion and overlapping parties are addressed in accordance with the rankings held by them in the trial court.

¶36

The substance of the case is that the schedule property was allotted to one B.Shivaraja, S/o Basavaraju by BDA on 14.03.2018. Subsequently, BDA executed registered sale deed dated 26.03.2018 in respect of the schedule property in favour of B.Shivaraja. Subsequently possession certificate was issued by BDA to the allottee and other relevant entries in the documents are made in the name of

¶37

¶38

allottee. The said Shivaraja executed registered sale deed on 12.07.2018 in favour of the plaintiffs and delivered possession. In this connection, the plaintiffs claimed being the owners in possession of the property they apprehended threat from defendants and sought for injunction. The matter was not challenged as per the records seen. The written statement of the defendants not forthcoming nor plaintiffs were cross examined nor defendants had their sworn testimony. However to confirm the same certified copy of the order sheet is not filed.

¶39

Learned counsel for appellants submit that no opportunity was given to the defendants. The matter is decided without the pleadings or evidence of defendants and submits if opportunity is not given defendants would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.

¶40

¶41

Learned counsel for respondents would submit that

¶42

the defendants have not availed the opportunity granted to them and planning to drag on the proceedings.

¶43

It is not becoming factor to file the incomplete papers and documents to the court. From reading of the Judgment it is revealed that the pleadings or evidence of the plaintiffs is not challenged by defendants nor defendants adduced evidence. In the ends of natural justice opportunity may be granted to the defendants to contest the matter on merits, however not without imposing cost. Judgment and decree dated 16.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.4484/2019 is liable to be set aside.

¶44

Hence, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Appeal is allowed with costs. Judgment and

¶47

decree dated 16.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.4484/2019

¶48

¶49

is set aside. Matter is remanded to trial court. Cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by defendants to plaintiffs within seven days.

¶50

In order to avoid wastage of judicial time parties

¶51

are directed to appear before the trial court on 06.02.2021 without waiting for further notice from the court. The defendants shall file written statement if any on the first date of hearing and learned trial Judge shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶52

Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiffs

¶53

submits that there may be direction for early disposal as the matter is urgent because of the proposal of construction and raising price of construction materials.

¶54

¶55

Considering his submission, learned trial Judge

¶56

shall dispose of the matter within an outer limit of six

¶57

months.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

SBN

Ravikumar v. Smt. Swati Priya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikumar v. Smt. Swati Priya

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

Harikrishna Vs State by Talagattapura Police Station

Sri. K. Sreenivasappa Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent

Smt. Meenabai Vs Sri. Rehan Rafai

Sri Badumanda Uthaiah Vs Sri Manira Muthanna @ Vasu

M T Mallikarjunappa Vs Channabasappa S/O.Late Thammanna

Ms Deepa Sangeeth Vs Smt Tara Chandrasekharan