Dismissed

T.N. Prakash v. Range Forest Officer

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2023MSA/130/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous Second Appeal challenged the dismissal of a civil suit application for interim injunction. The Registry and Judge held the appeal not maintainable under CPC Order XLIII Rule 1(U) as the trial order was not set aside and was interlocutory, directing the appellant to seek other remedies.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(U) of the CPC.

T.N. Prakash Vs Range Forest Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43382 MSA No. 130 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

T.N. PRAKASH, S/O LATE NAKULAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT TYAGATOORU, NITTUR-HOBLI, GUBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. JYOTHI S.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

RANGE FOREST OFFICER, GUBBI, TUMAKURU, DISTRICT.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 R/W ORDER XLII OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.08.2023 PASSED IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.06/2023 ON THE FILE

¶15

OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:43382 MSA No. 130 of 2023

¶18

DATED 24.03.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.654/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant has challenged the order dated 24.03.2023 filed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Gubbi, in O.S.No.164/2022 by which the application filed for interim injunction under order 39 rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C was rejected. The appellant has also challenged the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Gubbi, Tumakuru District in M.A. No.6/2023 by which the appeal was dismissed and order passed by the Trial Court was confirmed.

¶22

The registry has raised the question of maintainability of the appeal on the ground that an appeal

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43382 MSA No. 130 of 2023

¶24

under order XLIII Rule 1(U) of C.P.C is not maintainable since the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not set aside. Likewise, the registry has observed that an appeal under order XLIII Rule 1(U) of C.P.C. is not maintainable against an interlocutory order.

¶25

The office objections regarding maintainability is upheld as an appeal under order XLIII Rule 1(U) of C.P.C is not maintainable against the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. It is however open for the appellant to file such other proceedings to challenge the orders impugned in this appeal before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

¶28

PHM

T.N. Prakash v. Range Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.N. Prakash v. Range Forest Officer

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

Sandhya Realtors Private Limited Vs the State by Marathalli Police Station

Smt. P.C. Rukmani Vs Namera K. Devaiah

Sri. Mallikarjunaiah Vs Smt. S.Chandrakala

Smt. Arpeetha Vs Panchayathi Development Officer

Sri N Rajendran Vs Sri N Ramesh Dead by Lrs

Smt Manjuala Reddy Vs Smt Rathnamma