Allowed

Mrs Chytra Arun Kumar v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2022MFA/5811/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant civil appeal against an order vacating an interim injunction. Finding the impugned order lacked reasoning and failed to decide pending applications on merits, the Court set aside the order, directed the trial court to decide the matter on merits, and restored the interim injunction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.2.2021 set aside; trial court directed to dispose of applications on merits; interim order of 5.12.2018 restored.

Mrs Chytra Arun Kumar Vs the Chief… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

MFA NO.5811 OF 2021 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mrs. Chytra Arun Kumar, Wife of Arun Kumar B., Aged about 37 years,

¶8

Arun Kumar B., Son of Linge Gowda, Aged about 42 years,

¶9

Both residing at No J-1006, 10^th Floor, Brigade Gateway, Malleswaram, Bengaluru-560055.

¶10

…Appellants

¶11

(By Sri Suresh S. Lokre, Senior Advocate for

¶12

Sri M.Chintan Chinnappa, Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

The Chief Commissioner, Bruhath Bengaluru, Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), Hudson Circle, Bengaluru-560002.

¶15

…Respondent (By Sri C.T.Parameshwarappa, Advocate)

¶16

This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC praying to set aside the order dated 23.02.2021 passed in O.S.No.26524/2018 , on the file of the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

¶17

:: 2 ::

¶18

(CCH-58) and consequently extend the interim order earlier granted.

¶19

This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard Sri Suresh S. Lokre, learned senior

¶22

counsel appearing for Sri Chintan Chinnappa for the appellants and Sri C.T.Parameshwarappa for the respondent.

¶23

The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.26524/2018 on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-58), Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. It is not necessary to narrate the facts as the trial court has not disposed of the application for temporary injunction on merits. The order sheet of the trial court shows that an ad-interim order of temporary injunction against respondent/defendant was granted on 5.12.2018. This order came to be extended from time to time. The defendant also filed an application under

¶24

:: 3 ::

¶25

Order 39 Rule 4 CPC on 26.8.2019 for vacating

¶26

the ad-interim order of temporary injunction. It appears that the plaintiffs thereafter made an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead three persons as defendants 2 to 4. On 23.2.2021, the plaintiffs filed an application under section 151 CPC for extending the order of temporary injunction. The trial court passed an order vacating the interim order.

¶27

The order impugned clearly shows that the

¶28

trial court has not passed any speaking order. The reasons why the trial court vacated the interim order are not forthcoming. Especially when the defendant made an application for vacating the adinterim order of temporary injunction by making an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC and that too when the interim order had been extended from time to time, the trial court was supposed to decide the two applications on merits. In this

¶29

:: 4 ::

¶30

view, the order dated 23.2.2021 vacating the interim order cannot be sustained. Hence, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 23.2.2021 is set aside. The trial court is hereby directed to dispose of the applications filed by the plaintiff and the defendant on merits. The interim order dated 5.12.2018 in favour of the plaintiffs will remain in force till the applications are decided by the trial court on merits.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

ckl/-

Mrs Chytra Arun Kumar v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Chytra Arun Kumar v. the Chief Commissioner

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

Shri Guruswamy Vs Shri Puttasubbappa

Shivashankara Reddy N Vs R Srikanth

Sri T R Narendra Vs the State of Karnataka

V Krishnamurthy Vs H v Nagaraj

Mr Manjunatha S Vs Mr R P M Subramanyam

Mr Ashfaq Ahmed Vs Mrs Iqbalunnisa Begum