Allowed

Sri S Muralikrishna v. Smt Lakshmi

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2024MFA/3338/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal against an order appointing a receiver in a partition suit. The High Court held that the trial court failed to record specific findings on conditions required for such appointment, set aside the order, and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order appointing a receiver set aside; trial court directed to dispose of suit within 6 months.

Sri S Muralikrishna Vs Smt Lakshmi — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:27286 MFA No. 3338 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3338 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. S. MURALIKRISHNA, S/O LATE R SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NO.403, 17TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI Y.R. SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI J.M. RAJANNA SETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. LAKSHMI, W/O LATE R SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.403, 17TH CROSS, BEHL LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶13

SMT. S. SHILPA, W/O SRI. HARISHKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO. 403, 17TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI D.L. JAGADEESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI R. KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI OMRAN GULAM AHMED KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:27286 MFA No. 3338 of 2024

¶17

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(s) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.23 IN O.S.NO. 5335/Y GV7 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-27), ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.23 FILED UNDER ORDER 40 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Challenging order dated 29.05.2024 passed by XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-27) in O.S.no.5335/2014 on I.A.no.23 filed under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), this appeal is filed.

¶22

Sri Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel for Sri J.M.Rajanna Setty, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appellant was defendant no.1 in suit filed for partition and mesne profits etc. In said suit, respondent no.1/plaintiff had filed I.A.no.23 for appointment of receiver for managing, preserving, receiving rent and profits from suit schedule properties etc. Under impugned order, trial Court allowed application on untenable grounds and therefore, appeal is filed for challenging impugned order.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27286 MFA No. 3338 of 2024

¶24

It was submitted, while passing impugned order, trial Court referred to decision relied upon by appellant in N. Kodandaramareddy Vs. Graphite India Karmikara Sangha

¶25

in MFA.no.5602/2004 disposed of on 28.11.2004, which laid down conditions for appointment of "Receiver." It was however submitted, while passing impugned order, trial Court did not give finding whether each requirement was met. Consequently order impugned was untenable and sought for allowing appeal.

¶26

On other hand, Sri D.L.Jagdeesh, learned Senior counsel for Sri R.Kothwal, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri Omron Gulam Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted, plaintiff and defendant no.2 would be satisfied if direction to expedite disposal of suit is issued to trial Court, as directions issued earlier were rendered futile.

¶27

Submission of learned counsel for respondent no.2 is

¶28

not countenanced by learned Senior counsel for appellant. In reply, he undertakes on behalf of appellant to cooperate for early disposal of suit.

¶29

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27286 MFA No. 3338 of 2024

¶31

From impugned order, it is seen while passing said order, trial Court has not recorded findings regarding 'whether applicant had excellent chance of succeeding in suit and whether leasing out and collection of rents etc. had led to danger or loss to suit properties', enumerated as requirements by this Court in N.Kodandarama Reddy's case (supra). On said count, order impugned would be untenable.

¶32

In view of above, appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside. Parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of suit as per their undertaking.

¶33

Trial Court shall proceed to dispose of suit as far as possible within a period of 6 months without granting unnecessary adjournments and by setting specific timeline of each stage of suit.

¶34

In view of disposal of appeal, pending applications stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri S Muralikrishna v. Smt Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Muralikrishna v. Smt Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadeva Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Madegowda Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Basappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Rubina Sulthana Vs Dr Syed Saadat

M/S Parekh Industries Limited Vs M/S Bangalore Refinery Pvt. Ltd.

Smt P Gayathri Vs Smt Mayamma