Allowed

S N Rajashekar v. Sri Ravichandra

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024WP/12516/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant challenged the appellate court's ex parte interim status quo order in a suit for cancellation of an agreement, contending he was not served with notice. The High Court found service was doubtful and set aside the appellate order, remanding the appeal to be heard afresh on merits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 02.03.2022 in MA.No.15024/2021 set aside; matter remanded to the appellate court; parties to appear on 02.07.2024.

S N Rajashekar Vs Sri Ravichandra — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21603 WP No. 12516 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 12516 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S.N. RAJASHEKAR, S/O S.H. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.J-3, NO.406, PROVIDENT WELL WORTH CITY, MARASANDRA VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPURA MAIN ROAD, HESARGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR N.D., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. RAVICHANDRA, S/O K. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT MYLANAHALLI PALYA, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

¶13

(BY SMT. BHAVYA A.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARADARAJ P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 2.3.2022 PASSED IN M.A.NO.15024/2021 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DEVANAHALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:21603 WP No. 12516 of 2022

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The defendant in the suit is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2022 passed in MA.No.15024/2021 by V Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Devanahalli.

¶21

The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for cancellation of the agreement dated 30.07.2018 and for injunction. In that, the respondent-plaintiff had filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 seeking a relief of not to create a third party right and not to change the nature of the suit schedule property. The said I.As., filed by the respondent-plaintiff came to be dismissed against the fact that the matter was carried before the Appellate Court.

¶22

Now, it is the case of the petitioner-defendant that without giving an opportunity to the defendant, the Appellate Court had passed an order of status quo . It is submitted that the defendant is in possession of the property and now, he is making construction in the said property and by virtue of the interim order granted, the defendant cannot carry-out the

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:21603 WP No. 12516 of 2022

¶25

construction and it is his case that the Court before passing an order ought to have given opportunity of hearing to the defendant.

¶26

It is submitted that though in the order, it is mentioned that, inspite of service of notice, there is no representation. Learned counsel has placed before this Court the postal cover wherein it shows that 'door was locked' and submits that an opportunity may be given to the defendant to contest the case and to bring the correct facts to the notice of the Court.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for respondent-plaintiff submits that the Court has observed that inspite of service of notice, the defendant has not contested the matter. Now an order of status quo has been passed by the Appellate Court. Since the suit is of the year 2020, he can contest the matter before the Court below.

¶28

I have heard the learned counsel for petitionerdefendant and learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff and perused the material on record.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:21603 WP No. 12516 of 2022

¶31

This Court has perused the order passed in MA.No.15024/2021 as it is observed that the defendant inspite of service of notice has not contested the matter and considering the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner-defendant, it appears that notice is not served on the petitioner-defendant.

¶32

Considering all these aspects, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order dated 02.03.2022 in MA.No.15024/2021 and remand the matter to the Appellate Court afresh for consideration on merits.

¶33

Accordingly, writ petition in allowed and the matter is remand back to the Court below.

¶34

The Court below shall dispose off the matter within a period of two months.

¶35

The parties shall appear before the Court on 02.07.2024 without further notice.

¶36

All pending IA’s if any shall stand closed.

¶37

CPN, CT: BHK

¶38

SD/JUDGE

S N Rajashekar v. Sri Ravichandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S N Rajashekar v. Sri Ravichandra

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

Shivakumar P Vs Smt. Shruthi N

Sri.R.v.Sathish Kumar Vs Sri. Srinivasa Murthy

Smt. Latha Shyama Raju Vs Sri P Shyama Raju

Smt. Shubhavathi S Shetty Vs Smt. Heera N Shetty

Sri Joseph Karkada Vs Ubmc Trust Association of

Sri Puneethkumar G Vs Smt N Kokila