Dismissed

Jayarama Reddy v. Shivaram

Karnataka HC30 Nov 2021WP/9893/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, legal heirs of the first defendant in a civil suit, filed a writ petition challenging an order granting a temporary injunction against them. The High Court held that since an appeal against the civil court's order was already pending, the High Court would not interfere on the ground that the order was perfunctory. The petition was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is rejected; the impugned order is left unaltered.

Jayarama Reddy Vs Shivaram — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9893/2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

JAYARAMA REDDY

DEAD BY LR'S

1(A). SMT. ANUSUYAMMA S/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶10

1(B). SMT. MANJULA.J D/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶11

1(C). SRI. RAVICHANDRA.J S/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶12

1(D). SRI. KARTHIK.J S/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.123,4^TH CROSS VINAYAKA LAYOUT, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. R SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR 1A TO 1D)

¶16

¶17

AND :

¶18

SRI. SHIVARAM S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SRI.RAJENDRA N S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 5^TH CROSS, NALLURAHALLI COLONY, NALLURAHALLI VILLAGE, WHITEFIELD POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 066. 3. SMT.SAROJA D/O LATE PILLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. SRI NANDAGOPAL S/O LATE PILLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 5. SMT.ROOPA D/O LATE PILLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.10, 2^ND MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, SIDDAPURA, WHITEFIELD POST, BENGALURU – 560 066. 6. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA @ MARGARATE D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY W/O JOHN BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶19

¶20

RESIDING AT NO.653, 9^TH CROSS, NEAR ROYAL SCHOOL, GANDHIPURA,WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶21

SMT.SUNANDA D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY W/OBABU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶22

SMT.GOWRAMMA @ANITHA D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY W/O RAMESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶23

RESPONDENT NO. 7 & 8 ARE RESIDING AT 5^TH CROSS, NALLURHALLLI COLONY, NALLURAHALLI VILLAGE, WHITEFIELD POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.7 BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.1522/2019 ANNEXURE-A.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶27

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The legal heirs of the first defendant in O.S. No.1522/2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [for short, ' the civil Court '] are the petitioners, and they have impugned the civil Court's order dated 9.9.2020. The civil Court by this impugned order has directed the jurisdictional Police to extend help to the petitioners in restraining the first defendant [the first respondent] from altering or changing the nature of the suit properties in terms of its order dated 26.02.2020 passed on I.A. No.3, an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short 'CPC'].

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶31

that the petitioners have filed an appeal impugning the civil Court's order dated 26.02.2020 and such appeal is pending, and he also submits that the petitioners'

¶32

¶33

grievance with the civil Court’s order dated 26.02.2020 is because it is perfunctory and without reasons.

¶34

This Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order only because the petitioners have filed an appeal against the order granting temporary injunction and they contend that such order is perfunctory. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the civil Court’s order granting temporary injunction, they must work out their remedies in the appeal filed by them.

¶35

The petition therefore, stands rejected.

¶36

SD/- JUDGE

¶37

AN/-

Jayarama Reddy v. Shivaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayarama Reddy v. Shivaram

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

Smt Saroja Vs Smt Gangamma

Sri Dinesh Vs Smt Yashodhamma

Smt. Shantamma Vs Smt. Lalithamma

Smt Umadevi S Vs Manmal Lunia

Smt. M. Vinutha Vs Shri B. Ramakrishna Reddy

Sri C N Srinivasa Kumar Vs Smt. Preethi Balaji