Disposed

Smt. G a Chandrakala v. Shri. H N Girish Reddy

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2023WP/14237/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 seeks to set aside a trial court order vacating an interim grant. The High Court directed the trial court to dispose of I.A.No.1 within two months to avoid conflicting decrees and extended the status quo order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; trial court directed to dispose I.A.No.1 within two months; status quo continued until disposal.

Smt. G a Chandrakala Vs Shri. H N Girish… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 14237 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 14237 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. G A CHANDRAKALA W/O A SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 'SRINILAYA', OPP TO GOVT HOSPITAL ROAD, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560087

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI FREUD RICHARDSON, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. TAHURA ANZAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SHRI. H N GIRISH REDDY S/O SHRI H C NARAYANA REDDY, R/AT NO.136/122, 4TH MAIN, IST CROSS, HONGASANDRA, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068

¶13

SHRI NAGABHUSHANA S/O SHRI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.106, 5TH MAIN, HONGASANDRA BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068

¶14

SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI S/O SHRI K C BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

WP No. 14237 of 2020

¶17

R/AT NO.21, 120/2, PLOT NO.13, GOLLAPUDI JAIN COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH-521225

¶18

SHRI LALIT KUMAR BHANDARI S/O SHRI K C BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.21-120/2, PLOT NO.13, GOLLAPUDI JAIN COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH-521225

¶19

SHRI GAURAV KUMAR BHANDARI S/O SHRI U C BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.266, 15TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, R M V EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560080

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(SRI.MITHUN GERAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 R3- SERVED SRI L.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SMT.VARSHA HITTINHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.5.11.2020 IN O.S.NO.266/2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL ANNEXURE - A.

¶23

THIS W.P., COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner who is the plaintiff before the trial

¶26

Court has called in question correctness of the order of

¶27

¶28

WP No. 14237 of 2020

¶29

05.11.2020 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.266/2020,

¶30

whereby the interim order granted in favour of the plaintiff was vacated.

¶31

After arguing the matter for sometime, learned

¶32

counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that between defendants No.1, 2 and the plaintiff, O.S.No.414/2020, O.S.No.415/2020 and O.S.No.416/2020 is also pending consideration, which has an impact on the present proceedings and there would be overlapping contentions and may lead to passing of conflicting decrees, unless both the proceedings are clubbed.

¶33

It is submitted that I.A.No.1 has not been

¶34

disposed off on merits, despite the pleadings having been completed.

¶35

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that for the present, a direction to dispose off I.A.No.1 within a fixed time period to redress grievance of the petitioner is required.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 14237 of 2020

¶38

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent

¶39

No.5/defendant No.5 submits that as there was no service in the suit, defendant No.5 would put in appearance and also take his stand in accordance with law.

¶40

Taking note of such stand, the trial Court to

¶41

dispose off I.A.No.1 within a period of two months from today.

¶42

Learned counsel for defendant No.5 submits that

¶43

written statement will be filed in the meanwhile.

¶44

The order of status-quo granted by this Court on

¶45

08.12.2020 would continue till disposal of I.A.No.1.

¶46

Accordingly, petition is disposed off.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

¶49

Smt. G a Chandrakala v. Shri. H N Girish Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. G a Chandrakala v. Shri. H N Girish Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S a Arunkumar Vs Smt S Sadguna

Sri Manjunatha R Vs Smt Mahalakshmi

Mr. Gopalakrishna. N Vs Mr. Puttaraju S

The Archdiocese of Bangalore Vs the Commissioner

National Highway Authority of India Vs Sri C Pramod

Sri Malleshappa Vs Sri Revanna