Appellant appealed against an order granting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The High Court of Karnataka, observing the appellant had no intention to alienate the property, held the appeal was not worth admission and dismissed it.
Appeal dismissed by refusal to admit; no relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
MFA NO.2300 OF 2021 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
Shivashankara Reddy N., S/o Narasimhareddy, Aged about 42 years, Residing at Sajjalavaripalli Village, Chelur Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District-561207.
…Appellant
(By Sri Kalyan R., Advocate)
AND:
:: 2 ::
Residing at Raghu Residency, Flat No.102, Opposite PWD Quarters, Urva Stores, Ashok Nagar Post, Mangaluru-575006.
…Respondents
This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 08.03.2021 passed on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.3729/2020 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge CCH-15, Bengaluru, allowing the I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.
This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Kalyan R, learned counsel for the appellant.
challenging the order of the trial court on I.A.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The
:: 3 ::
appellant is defendant no.4 in O.S.No.3729/2020 on the file of VIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The first respondent is the plaintiff seeking for specific performance based on agreement dated 21.02.2018. The first respondent being the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the schedule property till disposal of the suit. The said application has stood allowed and therefore this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has no intention to sell the schedule property. In this view, even if this impugned order is allowed to remain, the interest of the appellant will not be affected in any way. The appellant is the purchaser of the schedule property from defendant no.1 to 3 after the agreement came into existence. Therefore he is the proper party to the suit. Since defendant no.4 has no intention to dispose of the
:: 4 ::
property, I do not think that this appeal is worth to be admitted. Hence appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
sd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal regarding the temporary injunction order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is worth admission.
Whether the lack of intention to sell the property by the appellant warrants the dismissal of the appeal.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shivashankara Reddy N.
R.Srikanth
Smt. Asha Ravindra
Jishnu M Ravindra
Jeshma M.Ravindra
Sreenivas Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
