Disposed

Krishne Gowda v. Bathale Gowda

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023MFA/585/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka modified the impugned order of the Trial Court rejecting an application for temporary injunction. It directed that any construction by respondents on the suit property remains subject to the suit's final outcome, and mandated disposal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Modified the impugned order directing that construction by respondents is subject to the suit's final outcome; Trial Court must dispose of suit within six months.

Krishne Gowda Vs Bathale Gowda — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 585 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2023 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KRISHNE GOWDA S/O LATE BATHALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/A HALLIPURA VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. CHETHAN A C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BATHALE GOWDA

¶13

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

S/O LATE BATHALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/A HARADI VILLAGE, HEMARIAHALLI POST, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562102 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

¶15

BALAJI S/O BATHALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A HARADI VILLAGE, HEMARIAHALLI POST,JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562102 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 585 of 2023

¶18

NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O BATHALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A HARADI VILLAGE HEMARIAHALLI POST, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562102 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

¶19

MRS SHOBA RANI D/O BATHALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A HARADI VILLAGE, HEMARIAHALLI POST, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562102 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

¶20

JAGADISH S/O Y KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A 12/123 THINDLU MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560097

¶21

M/S. GREEN NATION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS AND M/S. VALIANT AMRUT INDIA INFRA LLP BOTH REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

¶22

SAAD SALMAN S/O SYED KALEEM UR REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A 13, 4^TH CROSS, HRBR 2^ND BLOCK KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560043

¶23

SYED NOOR RAFIULLA S/O SYED NOOR SHAFIULLA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A KATIGENAHALLI VILLAGE BEHIND GOVERNMENT URDU SCHOOL JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI-562114 HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶24

MANJUNATH V S/O VENKATESH H S AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 585 of 2023

¶27

R/A 106/138, NAGAVARA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560045

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. VIVEK S REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. V. MUNIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6)

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.04.01.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.340/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA, DISMISSING IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶31

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

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 04.01.2023 passed in O.S.No.340/2022, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sidlaghatta, whereby the application I.A.No.2 filed by the appellant-plaintiff for temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from putting up any construction over the suit schedule immoveable property was rejected by the Trial Court.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶35

The material on record discloses that the appellant - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration, injunction and

¶36

¶37

MFA No. 585 of 2023

¶38

other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the appellant-plaintiff having filed the instant I.A.No.2 for temporary injunction restraining respondents– defendants from putting up construction on the suit schedule property, the same was opposed by the respondents and culminated in the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting I.A.No.2, aggrieved by which the appellants-plaintiffs are before this court by way of the present appeal.

¶39

It is pertinent to note that in the connected matter MFA No.3507/2022 dated 13.03.2023, this Court has passed the following order:

¶40

“ Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the present appeal by modifying the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and by directing that any construction put up by the respondent No.3 – defendant No.3 on the suit schedule property would be subject to the final outcome of the suit and that respondent No.3 would not claim any equities in this regard. It is further directed that the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 585 of 2023

¶43

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

¶44

order passed in MFA No.3507/2022 dated 13.03.2022, the order impugned in the present appeal is also hereby modified directing that any construction put up by the respondents – defendants on the suit schedule property would be subject to the final outcome of the suit and that respondents – defendants would not claim any equity in this regard. It is further directed that the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

KLY

Krishne Gowda v. Bathale Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishne Gowda v. Bathale Gowda

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 K S Lakshmidevi @ Lakshmidevamma Vs Superintendent Engineer Bescom

Smt Sumithra Vs Devaraju

Sri. M. Mani Vs Smt. Anandamma

T R Nagaraj Vs Smt Gayathri Devi @ Nirmala Devi

Mr. B Selvaraj Vs Sri. a Mariyappa

M Rafiq @ Sheik Rafiq Vs Anantha Murthy M Hegde