Disposed

Sri D Narasimhamurthy v. Smt Jayamma

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2022WP/5479/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a trial court order declining ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX CPC. The High Court held that granting interim relief is discretionary and directed the trial court to consider the applications within three months, without expressing an opinion on merits at that stage.

What did the court decide?

The trial court directed to consider IAs. I and II within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Sri D Narasimhamurthy Vs Smt Jayamma — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5479 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. D. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE SRI. DODDAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT No.318, 2^ND CROSS, 7T MAIN ROAD, ATTURU POST, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O SRI. MUNIHUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶12

SRI. SURESH KUMAR S/O SRI. MUNIHUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶13

SRI. VASANTH KUMAR S/O SRI. MUNIHUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶14

SRI. MUNIRAJA S/O SRI. MUNIHUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶15

¶16

SRI. MURTHY S/O SRI. MUNIHUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶17

SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶18

SMT. CHENNAMMA W/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶19

SRI. K. MURALI KUMAR S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶20

SMT. RENUKA D/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶21

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ATTUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI & TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 064.

¶22

….RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02^ND MARCH, 2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINICPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.451 OF 2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA.NOs.I AND II PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D1 AND D2; AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02^nd March, 2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) in Original Suit No.451 of 2022, issuing emergent notice on IAs.I and II.

¶28

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the plaintiff has filed suit against the defendants seeking direction to the defendants to execute the Sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property based on the Agreement of Sale dated 01^st June, 2006. In the said suit, the plaintiff has filed IAs.I and II under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking Ex-parte order of temporary injunction, restraining defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. The said application was considered by the trial Court, However, declined to grant ad-interim injunction order without hearing the defendants and accordingly, issued emergent notice on the applications filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the

¶29

¶30

Civil Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has presented this writ petition.

¶31

Sri. V.R. Balaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the defendants are making efforts to alienate the suit schedule property and in the event, if they have allowed to do so, the relief sought for in the suit becomes infructuous and on the other hand, great hardship shall be caused to the plaintiff. Hence, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶32

Having heard, Sri. V.R. Balaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully examined the impugned order, wherein the trial Court, after considering the material available on record, had refused to grant ad-interim order of temporary injunction on the ground of delay in approaching the Court, however, issued emergent notice on applications. It is well established principle of law that granting or refusing of interim order is discretionary in nature, supported with sound principles in law. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and taking into account the

¶33

¶34

urgency pleaded by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the defendants are likely to alienate the suit schedule property, the trial Court is directed to consider IAs.I and II at the earliest within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

ARK

Sri D Narasimhamurthy v. Smt Jayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D Narasimhamurthy v. Smt Jayamma

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 M Shafi Vs Smt Zaibunnissa

Sri Ramesh Vs Sri M Jayanth

Sri Ayoob Vs Sri Hafeez

M/S Electronics and Controls Vs M/S Wep Peripherals Limited

Dr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty Vs Icici Bank

Smt Shylaja Vs Smt Mallajammanni