Allowed

M/S. Pgm Ferro Steels Private Limited v. O. Suresh S/O. O. Siddanagouda

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2023WP/100279/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Dharwad Bench, disposed of two writ petitions by modifying the impugned orders that dismissed temporary injunction applications. The court directed the defendant not to alienate the property and instructed the trial court to decide the specific performance suit within six months without being influenced by the lower courts.

What did the court decide?

Modified impugned orders; directed respondent not to alienate property; directed trial court to dispose suit within six months.

M/S. Pgm Ferro Steels Private Limited Vs O. Suresh… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100279 of 2023 C/W WP No.100365 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100279/2023 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.100365/2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

IN W.P.NO.100279/2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S. PGM FERRO STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED R/BY IT’S AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY KATTA RAVI KUMAR S/O. VENKATA REDDY AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.1355A, ROAD NO.1 AND 45, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD AND HEAD QUARTERS AT HARAGINADINI VILLAGE, DIST. BALLARI-583101.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

O.SURESH S/O O.SIDDANAGOUDA, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.73, LINGAYATH STREET, HARAGINADONI VILLAGE AND POST, TALUK AND DIST. BALLARI-583101.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN IA.NO.III DATED 29/07/2022 BY THE

¶18

¶19

WP No. 100279 of 2023 C/W WP No.100365 of 2023

¶20

LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT BALLARI IN OS NO.276/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN MA.NO.52/2022 DATED 18/11/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED IV ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) AT BALLARI VIDE ANNEXURE-E CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA.NO.III.

¶21

IN W.P.NO.100365/2023

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

M/S PGM FERRO STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED R/BY IT’S AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY KATTA RAVI KUMAR S/O. VENKATA REDDY AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HAVING IT’S REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.1355A, ROAD NO.1 AND 45, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD AND HEADQUARTERS AT HARAGINADINI VILLAGE, DIST. BALLARI-583101.

¶24

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

O.SURESH S/O O.SIDDANAGOUDA, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.73, LINGAYATH STREET, HARAGINADONI VILLAGE AND POST, TALUK AND DISTRICT. BALLARI-583101.

¶27

…RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED

¶30

¶31

WP No. 100279 of 2023 C/W WP No.100365 of 2023

¶32

ORDER PASSED IN IA.NO.II DATED 29/07/2022 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT BALLARI IN OS.NO.276/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN MA.NO.51/2022 DATED 18/11/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED IV ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) AT BALLARI VIDE ANNEXURE-E CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA.NO.II.

¶33

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Both these petitions arise out of O.S.No.276/2022. Writ Petition No.100279/2023 is directed against the impugned order on I.A.No.3 dated 29.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.276/2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Ballari as well as impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed in M.A.No.52/2022 by the IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ballari whereby the aforesaid application and appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff were dismissed by the trial Court.

¶36

Writ Petition No.100365/2023 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.2 filed by the

¶37

¶38

WP No. 100279 of 2023 C/W WP No.100365 of 2023

¶39

petitioner/plaintiff rejecting the application for temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with the petitioner’s alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, petitioner preferred appeal in M.A.No.51/2022 which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.11.2022.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

¶41

The material on record discloses that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance and for other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff having filed applications-I.A.No.2 and I.A.No.3 3 for temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from alienating, encumbering or creating third party rights over the suit schedule property and from interference with possession, the same were opposed by the respondent/defendant pursuant to which the trial Court passed the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.2 and I.A.No.3 vide impugned orders dated 29.07.2022.

¶42

¶43

WP No. 100279 of 2023 C/W WP No.100365 of 2023

¶44

Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/plaintiff preferred appeals in M.A.No.51/2022 and M.A.No.52/2022 which also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.11.2022. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petitions.

¶45

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims on the applications and in the suit as well as in the aforesaid appeals M.A.No.51 and 52 of 2022 before this Court, I am of the view that several contentions, issues and disputed questions of fact and law arise for consideration between the parties in the suit. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose off both these petitions by modifying the impugned orders and by directing the respondents not to alienate, encumber or create third party right over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court on I.A.Nos.2 and 3

¶46

¶47

WP No. 100279 of 2023 C/W WP No.100365 of 2023

¶48

as well as first Appellate Court in M.A.Nos.51 and 52 of 2022.

¶49

In the result, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. Both petitions are disposed off by modifying the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as first Appellate Court.

¶52

ii. The respondents are directed not to alienate, encumber or create third party right over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

¶53

iii. The trial Court is directed to dispose off the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded by the trial Court as well as first Appellate Court in the impugned orders.

¶54

iv. All rival contentions between the parties kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶55

SD JUDGE

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

¶57

CLK

M/S. Pgm Ferro Steels Private Limited v. O. Suresh S/O. O. Siddanagouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Pgm Ferro Steels Private Limited v. O. Suresh S/O. O. Siddanagouda

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

Basanagouda S/O. Shankargouda Patil Vs the Project Director

Smt. Lila Aliyas Lilavathi W/O Ashok Bevinmar Vs Smt. Yellakka Alias Yallakka W/O Yellappa Kalal

Shiddappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Suresh S/O Paris Korigeri Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Pgm Ferro Steels Private Limited Vs O Suresh S/O. O. Siddanagouda

G. M. Vishwanath S/O G M Sharabhaiah Vs the Gram Panchayath