Allowed

Smt. Ranjitha v. Sreekanth

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023RFA/287/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal against a decree for permanent injunction, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court decree, and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing to grant appellants an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Impugned judgment and decree set aside; Matter remitted to Trial Court for fresh hearing.

Smt. Ranjitha Vs Sreekanth — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40748 RFA No. 287 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.287 OF 2016 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. RANJITHA W/O SRI. L K KIRAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶8

SRI KIRAN KUMAR L.K S/O SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶9

BOTH R/AT NO.902, 59^TH CROSS KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶10

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. T.N. RAMASWAMY S/O LATE GOPALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.80, 4^TH MAIN, SRI RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076.

¶12

(BY SRI. NARAYAN M S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SREEKANTH S/O LATE NARASIMHA BHAT AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.264, 10^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560070.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.VENKATESH C. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. VAISHNAVI LAW ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:40748 RFA No. 287 of 2016

¶20

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5729/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 29^th ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-30), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal by the defendants in O.S.No.5729/2012 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.11.2015 passed by the 29^th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff for permanent injunction and other reliefs against the appellants – defendants was decreed in favour of the respondent – plaintiff by the Trial Court.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶25

The material on record discloses that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants – defendants from interfering with the business of the plaintiff described as M/s. Hi-Tech Die Makers in

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:40748 RFA No. 287 of 2016

¶28

the schedule to the plaint. It is an undisputed fact that the 1^st defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff’s elder brother and defendant No.2 is her husband, while the 3^rd defendant is one more brother of the plaintiff. The defendants filed their written statement disputing and denying the plaint averments, pursuant to which, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

¶29

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants etc., from interfering with his business run under the name and style Hi-Tech Die makers in the schedule premises as alleged?

¶30

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that there is

¶31

invasion of his right?

¶32

3. What order or decree?

¶33

The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked; however, the defendants neither cross-examined the plaintiff nor adduced any defence evidence, as a result of which, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, who are before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:40748 RFA No. 287 of 2016

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on

¶37

account of ill-health of appellant Nos.2 and 3, appellant No.1 had to take care of them and could not contact their counsel in the Trial Court and give him necessary instructions to cross-examine PW-1 and also adduce defence evidence. It is submitted that if one more opportunity is provided, the appellants would cross-examine PW-1 and other witnesses of the plaintiff, if any, and also adduce defence evidence, for which purpose, it is necessary that the impugned judgment and decree is required to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned judgment and decree and submits that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, without expressing any opinion on the merits / de-merits of the rival contentions, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the appellants to cross-examine PW1 and other witnesses of the plaintiff, if any, and also adduce defence

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:40748 RFA No. 287 of 2016

¶42

evidence, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶43

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.

¶46

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 26.11.2015 passed in O.S.No.5729/2012 by the 29^th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is hereby set aside.

¶47

(iii) Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for

¶48

reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶49

(iv) Appellants are permitted to cross-examine PW-1 and

¶50

other witnesses of the plaintiff, if any, and also adduce defence evidence.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

DHA / Srl. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt. Ranjitha v. Sreekanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ranjitha v. Sreekanth

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

Jayanth Govind Singh Vs Karnataka Secondary Education

Sri Nawaz Pasha Vs Sri M Om Prakash

Sri Syed Nayeem Vs Sri M Om Prakash

Sri Sreerama Vs Sri R Narayanappa

N. Chandrashekar Vs S. Dharnesh

Ravichandran R Vs Chitralekha