Disposed

Padmavathi a v. Smt G Lakshmi Devi

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2022MFA/8387/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal, filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC against an order directing issuance of emergent notice in an interim injunction application, was disposed of without deciding merits. The Court referred to precedents and, noting that defendants had been served summons, directed the trial Court to consider the application within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to consider I.A. no.1 within 15 days from 13.01.2023.

Padmavathi a Vs Smt G Lakshmi Devi — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 8387 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8387 OF 2022 (CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

PADMAVATHI A., D/O LATE M.P. GOVINDA RAJ, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A GLOBAL NANDANAM FLAT, 509, KEREGUDDADAHALLI, CHIKAKBANAVARA POST, ABBIGERE, BENGALURU 560 090.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

[BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT. G.LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O LATE M.P. GOVINDA RAJ, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT NO.113, GROUND FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, P & T COLONY R.T. NAGAR, 2^ND BLOCK, BANGALORE 560 032.

¶11

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. G. OMPRAKASH, S/O LATE M.P. GOVINDARAJ, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.113, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, P & T COLONY, R.T. NAGAR, 2^ND BLOCK, BANGALORE 560 032.

¶13

SRI. G. KUMARAVELU, S/O LATE M.P. GOVINDA RAJ, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.113, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, P & T COLONY, R.T. NAGAR, 2^ND BLOCK, BANGALORE 560 032.

¶14

¶15

MFA No. 8387 of 2022

¶16

ENTEPRENEURSHIP DEVELPMENT INSTITUTE OF INDIA, REP. BY RAMAN GUJRAL, HAVING OFFICE AT 102, 70^TH CROSS, 17^TH MAIN ROAD, 5^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2022 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.26815/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, ISSUING EMERGENT NOTICE ON I.A. NO.1 AND SUIT SUMMONS TO DEFENDANT.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Challenging order dated 25.11.2022 passed by

¶22

XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in O.S.no.26815/2022 on I.A.no.1, this appeal is filed.

¶23

Appellant herein was plaintiff, while

¶24

respondents herein were defendants. They will be referred to as such herein.

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 8387 of 2022

¶27

O.S.no.28615/2022 was filed for partition and

¶28

separate possession of 1/4th share in suit schedule properties and for mesne profits etc. In said suit, he filed I.A.no.1 for temporary injunction to restrain defendants from alienating suit schedule properties during pendency of suit.

¶29

When said application came up for

¶30

consideration and plaintiff sought for grant of ad interim injunction, trial Court ordered issuance of emergent notice.

¶31

It was submitted that plaintiff/appellant had made out case for grant of ex parte injunction and therefore, refusal to grant it ex parte, called for interference.

¶32

At outset, whether appeal against impugned order would be maintainable, requires consideration in view of ratio in Gajaraj Singh Vs.Ramkumar¹ , and Kushilal Vs. Gorelal² , learned counsel for appellant sought to make submissions on merits. Therefore

¶33

1 AIR 1992 MP 316

¶34

2 AIR 1986 MP 47,

¶35

¶36

MFA No. 8387 of 2022

¶37

instead of hearing matter on merits, this Court sought

¶38

to know about whether service of notice was completed or not, learned counsel fairly submitted that defendants had already been served with suit summons and next date of hearing was fixed on

¶39

13.01.2023.

¶40

In view of above facts and circumstances, instead of dealing with appeal and interim application filed in this appeal, this Court deem it appropriate to dispose of appeal with direction to trial Court to consider I.A.no.1 forthwith and dispose it of within fifteen days from next date of hearing.

¶41

Consequently, appeal is disposed.

¶42

Trial Court is directed to consider I.A.no.1 within 15 days from next date of hearing i.e., 13.01.2023, in accordance with law.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

GRD

Padmavathi a v. Smt G Lakshmi Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmavathi a v. Smt G Lakshmi Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Abdul Raffeekh Vs Sri Manjunath N

Sri N M Basappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Manohara Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt. P.N Sunitha Vs Sri. Nallurashetty

Sri. K Balasubramani Vs Sri. Bheemashen Kamble

K.Sainath Reddy Vs Jayalakshmi