Disposed

Sri. S. Byregowda v. Sri. Benjamin Thejasvi

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2023WP/3122/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging a trial court order granting summons. The Court found that contempt proceedings were dropped due to respondents' affidavit denying construction on the suit property, rendering the petitioner's apprehension unfounded, and the petition was disposed of without commenting on the merits of the underlying civil suit.

What did the court decide?

No interim order was passed; the writ petition was disposed of without further orders on costs.

Sri. S. Byregowda Vs Sri. Benjamin Thejasvi — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:33629 WP No.3122 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3122 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S. BYREGOWDA S/O M. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT HENNUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 043.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH HEGDE, ADV.,)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. BENJAMIN THEJASVI S/O LATE S.P. FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶14

SMT. SUJATHA BALRAJ D/O LATE S.P. FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶15

SRI. NIRUP FRANCIS S/O LATE S.P. FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶16

SURAJ SAMUEL S/O SUJATHA BALRAJ AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶17

SRI. MANISH MATHEW S/O BENJAMIN THEJASVI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:33629 WP No.3122 of 2021

¶19

¶20

KUM. IRENE PREETHI D/O BENJAMIN THEJASVI AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶21

MASTER ARUN BENADICT S/O SUJATHA BALRAJ AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN SMT. SUJATHA BALRAJ.

¶22

DEFENDANT NOS.1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1, JERUSALEM GETHSEMANE GARDEN OPPO MANTRI ASTRA APARTMENTS HENNUR BANDE, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶23

M/S. SAHARA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, S.S. MANOR CHELLAKERE RING ROAD KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY AND SRI. RAMESH REDDY.

¶24

SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY PARTNER M/S. SAHARA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, S.S. MANOR CHELLAKERE RING ROAD KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶25

SRI. RAMESH REDDY PARTNER M/S. SAHARA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, S.S. MANOR CHELLAKERE RING ROAD

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:33629 WP No.3122 of 2021

¶28

KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. V. NAGAREDDY, ADV., FOR R8 TO R10 SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOWDA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R6 R7 SERVED)

¶31

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.01.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 TO 3 BY THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S.5696/2020 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS THE ORDER TO ALLOW THE IA NO.2 TO 3. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO RESTRAIN THE R-1 TO 10 HEREIN EITHER FROM ALTERING THE NATURE OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY OR FROM CREATING ANY ENCUMBRANCES IN FAVOUR OF ANY THIRD PARTIES PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT PETITION.

¶32

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking prayer to quash the order dated 25.01.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.2 to 3 in O.S.No.5696/2020 whereby the Trial Court has issued summons and emergent notice of I.A.Nos.2 to 4 to defendant Nos.1 to 10 therein. Being aggrieved by the said order of not granting injunction in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:33629 WP No.3122 of 2021

¶37

Heard Sri.Manjunath Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Chandrakanth R.Goulay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶38

The respondents have filed memo for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the contempt petition filed by the petitioners in C.C.779/2021 between the same parties alleging the violation of the interim order of status quo passed by this Court on 08.09.2022 has been dropped. Hence, the present petition does not survive for consideration.

¶39

This Court vide interim order dated 15.02.2021 has directed the parties to maintain status quo till the next date.

¶40

The petitioner herein has filed contempt petition in CCC No.779/2021 alleging disobedience of the order dated 15.02.2021 passed in the present writ petition i.e. W.P.No.3122/2021. The Division Bench of this Court was

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:33629 WP No.3122 of 2021

¶43

pleased to consider the contempt petition and pass the following order:

¶44

"The civil contempt proceedings are hereby dropped. It is needless to observe that inspite of personal affidavit filed by the accused before this court to the effect that they have not put up any construction in Sy. No.31/9, if any construction is made in Sy.No.31/9 by accused Nos.1 to 7 and 8 to 10 at the instance of accused No.1 to 7, the accused shall not claim any equity, in case the complainant proves that the construction is made in Sy.No.31/9, which is always subject to result of WP No.3122/2021 and OS No.5696/2020 pending between the parties."

¶45

On perusal of the order passed in the contempt proceedings, it is evident that the respondent - defendants herein have filed an affidavit stating that they have not put up any construction in Sy.No.31/9. Recording the said affidavit and submission, the contempt petition was closed.

¶46

The subject matter of the suit is property bearing Sy.No.31/9 measuring 33 acres situated at Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and the respondent -

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:33629 WP No.3122 of 2021

¶48

defendants have filed an affidavit in the contempt petition categorically stating that they are not putting up any construction in the suit schedule property. The apprehension of the petitioner that the respondent - defendants are putting up construction in the suit schedule property and trying to interfere is unfounded.

¶49

On perusal of the material on record, it is evident

¶50

that the respondents have specifically stated that they are putting up the construction in Sy.No.115 of Hennur Village, Bangalore North Taluk and they have not put up any construction in Sy.No.31/9 measuring 33 guntas. When the subject matter of the property claimed by the petitioner and the respondents are different, the petitioner's grievance would not survive for consideration in the present petition. The affidavit undertaking of the respondents is already on record in the contempt proceedings. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit and demerit of the pending suit. The observations of this Court is based on the pleading and the material available on record. Hence, no

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:33629 WP No.3122 of 2021

¶52

¶53

further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition.

¶54

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶55

No order as to costs.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Sri. S. Byregowda v. Sri. Benjamin Thejasvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S. Byregowda v. Sri. Benjamin Thejasvi

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

Sri Chinnaswamy Gowda Vs Sri Shivaramu C M

Sri. N. Z. Nizamuddin Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Puttamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri K Ramesh Vs Sri Sreenivasa Murthy

Ramesha Vs Kalegowda

Sri a B Jayaram Vs Sri B S Ananda Shetty