Petitioners challenged rejection of their injunction application restraining alteration of suit property. The court declined to interfere under Article 226 since no interim order had operated for five years, directed disposal of the pending 2010 appeal within six months, and dismissed the writ petition.
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 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 21087 OF 2019 (KVOA)
BETWEEN:
1(a) SMT H V NAGARATHNA D/OL ATE JAYAMMA W/O R VASUDEVA JETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS NO.528.54, 14TH MAIN ROAD, GOKUL 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE BENGALURU-560054.
Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
1(b) SMT H V NIRMALA D/O LATE JAYAMMA W/O ANAND JETTY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.232/28, 14TH MAIN ROAD GOKUL 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE BENGALURU-560054.
APPELLANTS No.1(c) AND 1(d) RESIDING AT NO.528, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE,
1ST PHASE, GOKUL EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560054
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
4(a) RATHNA W/O LATE N GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT THIPPENAHALLI VILLAGE DODDABIDARAKALLU DHAKLE YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560075.
4(b) MANJUNATH S/O LATE N GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT THIPPENAHALLI VILLAGE DODDABIDARAKALLU DHAKLE YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560075.
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
6(a) SMT VARALAKSHMI D/O SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.56, R K PAPARMENT 14TH MAIN ROAD RAMAMURLTHYANGAR KASTHURBA ROAD BANGALORE-560016.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HEMALATHA.V., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-10; VIDE ORDER DATED:29.05.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R-2, R-3, R-4(a TO c), R-5, R-6(a) & R-7 TO 9 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU M.A. NO.46/2010 DATED 11.1.2019 IN DISMISSING THE IA NO.15 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THEREBY ALLOWING THE SAID I.A.NO.15.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
is not an appropriate case for grant of an interim order.
NC: 2024:KHC:19648 WP No. 21087 of 2019
appeal, the same would be subject to the ultimate result
of the appeal.
Sd/JUDGE
HNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the trial court's rejection of an interim injunction application filed in 2019, given no interim order operated for five years.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt Jayamma (since dead by her LRs)
The Tahasildar, Bangalore North Taluk
N Narasimhaiah
N Venkataramanappa
N Govindaraju (since dead by LRs)
Ganganarasamma
N S Sanjay Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
