Disposed

Smt. Pushpavathi v. Sri S Vasanth Kumar

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2021WP/1748/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition alleging an imperinent need for expedited disposal. The Court directed the trial judge to decide the petitioner's interim injunction application within four weeks while the interim order stands.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial Judge to decide the interim injunction application within four weeks; interim order of 01.02.2021 continues.

Smt. Pushpavathi Vs Sri S Vasanth Kumar — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1748 OF 2021(GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PUSHPAVATHI, ALIAS PUSHPA M, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNIRAJA REDDY, R/AT NO.601, DODDANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU-560 100. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHIVA PRASAD E, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

SRI S VASANTH KUMAR, S/O SHANKAR NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT DODDANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU-560 100. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 13.01.2021, PASSED IN O.S.NO,16/2021, BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU, SO AS IT PERTAINS TO THE EXTENT OF RECORDING A FINDING THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS NT MADE OUT ANY PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR ISSUING AD INTERIM ORDER OF EXPARTE INJUNCTION AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.,

¶11

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Petitioner being the plaintiff in a declaration suit in O.S.No.16/2021 is knocking at the door of Writ Court for an innocuous prayer that his application for temporary injunction be heard & decided by the learned trial Judge when the said court has ordered only emergent notice.

¶15

After service of notice, the respondent-defendant having entered appearance through his counsel resists the writ petition contending that no prima facie case is made out for taking the petitioner’s subject application posthaste.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this writ petition is disposed off requesting the learned trial Judge to take up petitioner’s subject application for consideration and disposal within a period of four weeks and that till then the interim arrangement made by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2021 shall continue.

¶17

It is made clear that this order shall not influence the decision making on the subject application of the petitioner. The prima facie opinion casually expressed in the order of the learned Judge directing emergent notice

¶18

¶19

as to their being no ‘ prima facie case’ too shall not

¶20

influence consideration of subject application, in any way.

¶21

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶22

Sd/JUDGE

¶23

Snb/

Smt. Pushpavathi v. Sri S Vasanth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpavathi v. Sri S Vasanth Kumar

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. T. Xavier Vs Sharmila

Smt. D. Pallavi Vs Smt. Chinnamma

Sri Zakir Hussain Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahangara Palike

Late Smt Gangamma Vs Late Sri Eshwaraiah

Smt Meenakshi Vs Sri M K Mohandas

Sri Chethankumar Vs Smt Manjula