Disposed

Sri K Manjunath v. Sri Muniraju

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2023MFA/1681/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of civil first appeal against rejection of temporary injunction. Instead of deciding merits, Court directed trial court to restrain respondents from constructing on vacant space pending suit disposal and issued timeline for trial.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to put up construction on vacant space pending suit disposal; Trial Court directed to dispose suit within six months from receipt of certified copy.

Sri K Manjunath Vs Sri Muniraju — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 1681 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1681 OF 2023 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI K. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE KOTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8/A, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR 108 ‘B’ BUSSTOP, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 032. ... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI V.K. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O. NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. PUSHPA W/O. SRI MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.17, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR 108 ‘B’ BUSSTOP, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 32. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI B. KRISHNA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.25312/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (CCH-58), REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 1681 of 2023

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S. No.25312/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, whereby, the application-I.A.No.1 filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from encroaching upon Western side of plaintiff's suit schedule property measuring 5 feet was rejected by the Trial Court.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on records.

¶22

A perusal of the material on record, including the impugned order will clearly indicate that there are several contentious issues urged and disputed/complicated questions of law and fact that arise for consideration between the parties in the suit, which would necessarily have to be decided only after a fullfledged trial. However, in view of specific submission made on

¶23

¶24

MFA No. 1681 of 2023

¶25

instructions by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that the respondents/defendants would not undertake/put up any construction on the vacant space, if any, situated on the western side of the plaintiff’s property, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the appeal by modifying the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and directing the respondents/defendants not to put up any construction on the vacant space, if any, situated on the western side of the plaintiff’s suit schedule property, till disposal of the suit by the Trial Court and by directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded in the impugned order.

¶26

Subject to the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

MBM

¶29

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri K Manjunath v. Sri Muniraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Manjunath v. Sri Muniraju

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 Krishna D Vs Sri v G Santosh

Smt Reethamma Vs Smt Rose Mary M

Superintendent Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt Bhagyamma

K. Gajendran Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs Sri B K Krishnappa

Smt Nagamma @ Nagarathna Vs Ramaiah @ Meke Ramaiah