Disposed

Mr. Subramanian v. Smt. M. Shanthamma

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022WP/9890/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of Writ Petition No. 9890/2020, filed under Article 226 to quash the Civil Courts refusal to grant ex parte injunction. The Court accepted counsel's submission to dispose of the matter with liberty to pursue pending applications.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to pursue pending applications for injunction before Civil Court.

Mr. Subramanian Vs Smt. M. Shanthamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9890/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MR. SUBRAMANIAN S/O SRI U SELLAKKUTTI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 3038 PRESTIGE KENSINGTON GARDEN APTS HMT MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560013.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. MAMATHA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SMT. M. SHANTHAMMA W/O M MOHAN RAJU AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶12

MRS M SASHAI KALA M D D/O M MOHAN RAJU AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶13

MR M CHANDRA SHEKAR RAJU S/O M MOHAN RAJU AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶14

MR RAJA SHEKAR RAJU S/O M MOHAN RAJU

¶15

¶16

AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶17

ALL RESIDING AT NO 15 SUN RISE ENGLISH SCHOOL ROAD DODDAKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT BHOOPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560094.

¶18

MR ABDUL KHAUM SHAIK S/O ABDUL GHANI SHAIK AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT RAJANNA LAYOUT RBI COLONY BENGALURU - 560011.

¶19

MR M YOUSUF KHAN SON OF LATE M AHMED AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 188 1^ST BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560011.

¶20

MR V G PRANAV AGE 39 YEARS SON OF SRI GANGADHARAN R AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO J 107 10^TH CROSS, L N PURAM BENGALURU - 560021.

¶21

MR MANIKANTA H B SON OF LATE BETTEGOWDA AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 488 1^ST CROSS, 9^TH MAIN ROAD BHUVANESHWARINAGARA T DASARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560057.

¶22

¶23

MR PRAVEEN KUMAR V AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS SON OF MR DIVAKAR N RESIDING AT NO 25 OLD SAVAR LANE SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560020.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(R1 TO R4 & R6 SERVED- UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE IN IA NO.1 DATED 02.01.2020 IN O.S. NO. 15/2020, I.E., ANNEXURE-A REFUSING THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION AGAINST THE 9^TH RESPONDENT HIS HEIRS, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, ASSIGNS, HENCHMEN ETC AN PERSONS THROUGH AN UNDER HIM FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER TILL THE DISPOSAL OF ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 15/2020.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.15/2020 on the file of the LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, ‘ the civil Court' ]. The petitioner is aggrieved by the civil Court's order

¶30

¶31

dated 03.01.2020, and the civil Court by this order has opined that before granting an ex parte interim order, the defendants must be heard.

¶32

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that while some of the defendants - respondents have filed the written statement, the others have not. The applications [IA.1 and IA.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] are still pending consideration. The civil Court has framed Issues based on the rival pleadings. The petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the pending applications before the civil Court.

¶33

This submission must be accepted, and the petition stands disposed of subject to all just exceptions.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Mr. Subramanian v. Smt. M. Shanthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Subramanian v. Smt. M. Shanthamma

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. Dolly John Vs Smt. Rajani Sathyanarayana

Pavithra Education Society Vs Thirumeni Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Terrier Security Services (India) Private Limited Vs the Oterra Bengaluru Electronics City Hotel Division

Sri Mallappa Vs Sri Shankar

Sri Shivarama Vs the Superitending Engineer

Smt. Jameela Bi Vs Mohammed Ibrahim