MFA against order refusing ad-interim injunction in a specific performance suit. Court observed impugned order did not admit appeal and directed trial court to dispose of application within 30 days allowing hand summons.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4780 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGARAJU S, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.6, APPLE CORNER, 15TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, NANDHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 058.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 36 ARE RESIDING AT GULURU VILLAGE, GULURU HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 118.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.512/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, SSUING NOTICE ON I.A.NO.1 AND SUIT SUMMONS TO DEFENDANTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appeal is filed against order dated 18.07.2024
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru
in O.S.no.512/2024 on I.A.no.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (' CPC ' for short).
NC: 2024:KHC:29427 MFA No. 4780 of 2024
2. Sri K. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for
appellant submitted that appellant was plaintiff in suit filed for specific performance of agreement of sale. In said suit, I.A.no.1 was filed for temporary injunction to restrain defendants from alienating or creating any third party rights over suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. It was submitted, though in plaint as well as affidavit filed in support of application, plaintiff had made assertions to substantiate prima-facie case and had also produced relevant records, trial Court refused to grant ad-interim injunction and ordered issuance of notice returnable by 03.08.2024. It was submitted, since there was imminent threat of alienation by respondents even after plaintiff/appellant had made substantial payments and was ready and willing to pay balance amount, refusal to grant ad-interim injunction was contrary to law and called for interference.
considering material on record, learned trial Judge felt fit
to hear respondents/defendants before considering
application. Said order would not admit of appeal.
appropriate to dispose of appeal by directing trial Court to dispose of application as expeditiously as possible within a period of 30 days and by permitting appellant/plaintiff to take out hand summons to respondents/defendants. For said purposes, appellant is at liberty to seek for pre-ponement of date of hearing of suit also.
Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.
Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE
KA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere when the trial court refused to grant an ad-interim injunction on a specific performance suit by issuing notice instead.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Nagaraju S
Sri Ashwathaiha
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
