Disposed

Sri. H.R. Ravichandra v. Mr. Sreedhar Melagiri

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2024WP/3480/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the lower court to dispose of the interim application within three months and continued the status-quo order passed earlier until the interim application is finalized.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 06.02.2024 continued; Trial Court directed to dispose interim application within three months after winter vacation.

Sri. H.R. Ravichandra Vs Mr. Sreedhar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:52471 WP No. 3480 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3480 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. H.R. RAVICHANDRA S/O. LATE R. RAJASHEKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.748, 18^TH MAIN ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SHAMBHAVI S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR. SREEDHAR MELAGIRI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. M.V. MOHANDAS, RESIDING AT NO.11, GROUND FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, COCONUT AVENUE, JAMBUSAVARI DINNE, J.P. NAGAR 8^TH PHASE, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560076.

¶13

SMT. MARY PUSHPA D/O. LATE ANNAIAHAPPA @ ANATHAMMAN ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶14

SMT. ANJALIN D/O. LATE ANNAIAHAPPA @ ANATHAMMAN ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. LURDH MARY D/O. LATE ANNAIAHAPPA @ ANATHAMMAN ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52471 WP No. 3480 of 2024

¶17

SMT. JOSEPHIN D/O. LATE ANNAIAHAPPA @ ANATHAMMAN ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. ANTHONY MARY D/O. LATE ANNAIAHAPPA @ ANATHAMMAN ANNAIAH, W/O URBAIN DOSEZA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶19

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 R/AT ANNAIAHAPPA MARY HOLA, BEGUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560068.

¶20

SMT. PAULIN W/O. LATE C. LAWRENCE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶21

SRI. CHINNAPPA S/O. LATE C. LAWRENCE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶22

SMT. SUNITHA D/O LATE C. LAWRENCE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. ANITHA D/O LATE C. LAWRENCE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶24

SRI. LURDUSWAMY S/O LATE C. LAWRENCE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶25

SRI. DANIEL S/O LATE C. LAWRENCE, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶26

RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 12 R/AT ANNAIAHAPPA MARY HOLA, BEGUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560068.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52471 WP No. 3480 of 2024

¶28

SRI. ZAVEAR S/O LATE ANNAIAHPPA @ ANATHAMMAN ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶29

SRI. ABEL RAJ S/O LATE ANNAIAHPPA @ ANATHAMMAN ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶30

SRI. A.J. PAUL CHINNAPPA S/O ANTHONAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.13 TO 15 R/AT MARY HOLA, BEGUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068.

¶31

MR. URBANUS D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O MR. GASPER D'SOUZA, RESIDING AT NO.1008, MARY HOLA ROAD, BEGUR, NEAR MARY HOLA, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068.

¶32

MR. ROBERT I AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. MR. IGNASAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.1578, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI ROAD, OPP. ROYAL MERIDIAN LAYOUT, D.C. HALLI ROAD, BEGUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560068

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. B.V. ACHARYA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJAY SIMHA M.D., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶35

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON IA 1 AND 2 DATED 27.01.2024 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU IN OS NO.176/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY, TO GRANT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS TO NOT TO INTERFERE

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52471 WP No. 3480 of 2024

¶37

WITH PETITIONER'S POSSESSION OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OR ALIENATE THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The plaintiff in O.S.No.176/2024 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) is before this Court challenging an order dated 27.01.2024 refusing to grant an exparte order of interim injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff or alienate the suit schedule property.

¶41

The suit in O.S.No.176/2024 was filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. The suit property was land bearing Sy.No.28 of Yelenahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 02 acres 24 guntas. An application was filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property and also from

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:52471 WP No. 3480 of 2024

¶44

alienating or encumbering or transferring the suit property pending disposal of the suit.

¶45

The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order refused to grant an exparte interim injunction and issued emergent notice to the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff therefore, being aggrieved by the said order, has approached this Court.

¶46

This Court in terms of the order dated 06.02.2024 had passed the following order:

¶47

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶48

Issue emergent notice to the respondents returnable by 27.02.2024.

¶49

In the meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain status-quo in all respects in relation to the suit schedule property as on today till the next date of hearing.

¶50

Re-list on 27.02.2024.

¶51

Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents

¶52

to seek vacation / modification of this order."

¶53

When this petition was listed today for orders, the

¶54

learned

¶55

senior counsel representing the

¶56

defendants/respondents submitted that the Trial Court be

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:52471 WP No. 3480 of 2024

¶59

directed to dispose off the interim application filed by the plaintiff and until then, the order passed by this Court dated 06.02.2024 may be continued.

¶60

In view of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition stands disposed off by continuing the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by this Court until the disposal of interim application filed before the Trial Court.

¶61

The Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose off the application filed by the plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of reopening of courts after winter vacation, 2024.

¶62

It is needless to mention that the Trial Court shall be not influenced or prejudiced by the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the defendants/respondents to continue the order of status-quo granted by this Court.

¶63

All contentions are kept open.

¶64

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶65

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri. H.R. Ravichandra v. Mr. Sreedhar Melagiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H.R. Ravichandra v. Mr. Sreedhar Melagiri

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

Union of India Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.S.Sachidananda Vs Nirmala Ganga Education Trust

Tci Express Ltd. Vs Maxon Precision Motor India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. v. Manohar Vs Smt. K.J. v. Jayalakshmi

Tanuja Sathish Kumar Vs Mrs. K Anuradha

Sri Galappa Vs Hanumantharayappa