Disposed

Mr. Vishwadutt M Sathavalli v. Mr. B.C Jagadeesh

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023MFA/3749/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC challenging interim injunctions. It directed parties to maintain status-quo pending a partition suit application and ordered the trial court to dismiss the injunction suit since a comprehensive partition suit was pending.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed; Status-quo maintained; Trial court to dismiss injunction suit and decide partition application within eight weeks.

Mr. Vishwadutt M Sathavalli Vs Mr. B.C Jagadeesh — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41099 MFA No. 3749 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3749 OF 2023 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. VISHWADUTT M SATHAVALLI S/O MOHAN A SATHAVALLI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶8

MR MOHAN A SATAVALLI S/O LATE S ASWATHNARAYANA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶9

SMT JYOTHI MOHAN W/O MOHAN S SATHAVALLI D/O C P NITHYA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO 60 3RD FLOOR, 8TH A MAIN 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALUR 560011. …APPELLANTS

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MR. B.C JAGADEESH S/O B T CHANDRASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO 200, 44TH CROSS 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BSK II STAGE, BENGALURU 560070.

¶14

SRI B C JAYATHIRUMALALESHAPPA S/O B T CHANDRASHEKARAPPA

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:41099 MFA No. 3749 of 2023

¶17

AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

¶18

SMT LALITHA J MALLESHA W/O B C JAYATHIRUMALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R2 & R3 ARE R/AT PLOT NO 007 AND 423 LORVEN URBAN CREST APARTMENT 1ST MAIN, B DASHARATH SINGH LAYOUT CHUNCHAGATTA MAIN ROAD KONANAKUNTE, J P NAGAR BENGALURU 560062. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R1: SRI. KIRAN B., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:23.5.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 to 3 IN OS.NO.1945/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-43), ALLOWING IA NO.1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, DISMISSING IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.3 to 5

¶24

under Order 43 rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH43) in O.S.No.1945/2023, whereby IA Nos.1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41099 MFA No. 3749 of 2023

¶26

Procedure Code are allowed restraining defendants by way of temporary injunction from dispossessing the plaintiff from the schedule property and also restraining defendant Nos.3 to 5 not to demolish the upper floors of the suit schedule property so as to cause damage to the ground floor of the suit schedule property.

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.

¶28

The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction praying to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff without due process of law and filed IA Nos. 1 and 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. The trial court, by the impugned order, allowed IA Nos. 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 have filed this appeal.

¶29

During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.4969/2023. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. Since the plaintiff has filed a

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41099 MFA No. 3749 of 2023

¶31

comprehensive suit for partition, the suit filed for injunction does not survive for consideration. Under these circumstances, till the trial court decides the application filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.4969/2023, the parties be directed to maintain status-quo.

¶32

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶33

(i) The appeal is disposed of.

¶34

(ii) The parties are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of suit schedule property till the application of the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.4969/2023 is considered.

¶35

(iii) It is made clear that if the copy of this judgment is produced before the trial court in O.S.No.1945/2023, the trial court is directed to dismiss the said suit, since the plaintiff has already filed a comprehensive suit.

¶36

(iv) If the respondent/plaintiff wants to file any application, he has to file the same within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:41099 MFA No. 3749 of 2023

¶38

¶39

(v) The trial court is directed to dispose of the application within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the application by the respondent/plaintiff.

¶40

(vi) The trial court is directed to consider the application, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in this appeal.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Mr. Vishwadutt M Sathavalli v. Mr. B.C Jagadeesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vishwadutt M Sathavalli v. Mr. B.C Jagadeesh

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 Mangamma Vs the Managing Director

M.S. Sundaresh Vs Jagadish

Sri Girish N Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Mrs. Ruksana Banu Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Savithramma Vs Smt Jayamma

M/S Gnyana Mandir Trust Vs Nil