Allowed

Sri M Devaraj v. Bengaluru Development Authority

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023MFA/1641/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this miscellaneous first appeal against the dismissal of an injunction application. It modified the lower order by continuing the interim order protecting the appellant's possession, directed the trial court to decide the suit within a year, and kept merit contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; interim order dated 29.04.2016 continued in force; trial court directed to dispose suit within one year.

Sri M Devaraj Vs Bengaluru Development Authority — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 1641 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1641 OF 2015 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M DEVARAJ S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.3976, 3^RD MAIN, 19^TH CROSS, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY P CHOUDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 REPTD BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BRUAHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560002

¶15

SMT REKHA N MURTHY W/O NARASIMHA MURHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.266/12, 2^ND MAIN ROAD,

¶16

8^TH CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560019

¶17

SRI.B.C.VENKATARAVANAPPA S/O LATE SRI.CHENNAPPA,

¶18

¶19

MFA No. 1641 of 2015

¶20

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT BOMMAPALLI VILLAGE, CHILAKANERPU HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶21

SRI.CHANNARAYAPPA S/O LATE SRI CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT BOMMAPALLI VILLAGE, CHILAKANERPU HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶22

SRI.C.NARAYANAPPA @ NARAYANA S/O LATE SRI.CHENNAPPA, AGED AOBUT 59 YEARS, NO.5/15, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, BYATARAYANAPUTA, BENGALURU-560 026.

¶23

SMT.SHIVAMMA D/O LATE SRI.CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BOMMAPALLI VILLAGE, CHILAKANERPUHOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. M.V. VEDAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT. REKHA N. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. N.R. JAGADESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5 NOTICE TO R6 & R7 D/W)

¶26

MFA FILED U/O 43, RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED4.2.2015 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN O.S.NO.8474/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 40TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.3 FILED U/O 39, RULES 1 & 2 OF CPC.

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 1641 of 2015

¶29

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

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.8474/2014 is directed against the impugned order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.III, whereby the said application filed by the appellantplaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellant’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶33

The material on record discloses that though several contentions have been urged by both the sides in support of their respective claims on 29.04.2016, this Court passed the following interim order:

¶34

“Issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 7. Though there is caveat filed by learned counsel Sri.Ramesh Chandra, he submits that he has no instruction from the third

¶35

¶36

MFA No. 1641 of 2015

¶37

respondent. In the mean while, order impugned is stayed until next date of hearing.

¶38

Issue notice to all the parties except respondent No.3. In the mean while, it is made clear that the possession of the appellant with reference to the suit schedule property shall not be disturbed until next date of hearing.

¶39

List this matter during the second week of June 2016.”

¶40

It is relevant to state that the said interim order passed in

¶41

favour of the appellant has continued to remain in force and operates between the parties. Under these circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both the parties in support of their respective claims, without expressing any opinion on the merits/de-merits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this appeal by modifying the impugned order and by directing that the interim order dated 29.04.2016 passed by this Court in the present appeal to continue to remain in force and operate between the parties till the disposal of the suit by

¶42

the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 1641 of 2015

¶45

order, without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded in the impugned order.

¶46

All contentions between the parties are kept open and no

¶47

opinion is expressed on the same.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

JT/-

Sri M Devaraj v. Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Devaraj v. Bengaluru Development Authority

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 Mohammed Mumtaz Vs Sri Mohammed Mukhtar Afsar

S P Kumaraswamy Vs Smt Meera

Sri Munirama Reddy Vs Smt Hanifa Begum

M/S Shamnur Sugars Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax

Sri Venkatesha Vs Smt. Rathnamma

Sri Janardhanachary Vs Sri v Udaya Kumar