Appeal against rejection of temporary injunction in a partition suit. The High Court found the trial Court's order verbatim repeated an earlier non-speaking order already set aside on remand, without considering plaintiff's documents. Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:27825 MFA No. 1212 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1212 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GANGABAILAPPA, SON OF LATE RAMAIAH AND LATE DODDATHAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.149, KOWDENAHALLI, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ROHIT V.R, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:27825 MFA No. 1212 of 2024
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NEAR DODDAMMA TEMPLE KOWDENAHALLI, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 016.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 3 IN OS.NO.4710/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, CCH.NO.19, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:27825 MFA No. 1212 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Challenging impugned order dated 20.01.2022 passed by VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.4710/2014 on I.A.no.3 filed under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, this appeal is filed.
his favour, under impugned order, application came to be rejected by observing that plaintiff had not produced any
NC: 2024:KHC:27825 MFA No. 1212 of 2024
documents in his favour and failed to make out a prima facie case and balance of convenience and also hardship etc.,
submitted though matter was remanded at instance of plaintiff for reconsideration of application, as per observations in para
no.2, plaintiff had sought to rely on documents produced by defendants and therefore observation by learned trial Judge was justified and hence, no interference was called for.
"Whether impugned order suffers from illegality or perversity and calls for interference in appeal?"
earlier rejected I.A.no.3 vide order dated 16.01.2021. Reasons assigned for rejection contained in para no.9 thereof are as follows:
"9. Upon perusal of above documents and consideration of the above facts, as plaintiff has not produced any documents in his favour and failed to make out a prima-facie case and balance of
convenience and also hardship. Hence, I answer point no.1 in the negative."
"9. Upon perusal of above documents and consideration of the above facts, as plaintiff has not produced any documents in his favour and failed to make out a prima-facie case and balance of convenience and also hardship. Hence, I answer points No.1 to 3 in the negative."
NC: 2024:KHC:27825 MFA No. 1212 of 2024
which are filed along with memo today i.e., 18.07.2024) would indicate otherwise.
following:
ORDER
1) Appeal is allowed .
NC: 2024:KHC:27825 MFA No. 1212 of 2024
Sd/JUDGE
KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court's order rejecting the temporary injunction application suffers from illegality or perversity warranting interference in appeal?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Gangabailappa
Smt Bylamma (since dead, represented by LRs)
Smt Chikkathayamma
Smt Nirmalamma
Smt Narayanamma
Smt Doddathayamma
RAVI V HOSMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
