T N Rathnamma Vs Sri M Ramesh

M/S M.S.G DEVELOPERS PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO. 304, SAI NITHYA HOMES, 4TH MAIN, MAITRI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS.

¶23

MR. GAGADHAR MALLI REDDY S/O M. SHRINIVASALU REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.1/70 MALENATHAM, RAMASAMUDRAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH - 517 417.

¶24

MR. MEDA SUDARSAN REDDY S/O MEDA RAGAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 13-6-600/44 FLAT NO. 503-A, P.K. LAYOUT ASHOK APARTMENT TIRUPATHI (URBAN) CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH - 517 417.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:41806 WP No. 28710 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.08.2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE IN OS NO. 1595/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT HEAR ON THE IA NO. 1 FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND TO PASS AN INTERIM ORDER INJUNCTION AS SOUGHT FOR IN IA NO. 1, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.,

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Sri. M.S.Shyamsundar, learned Senior counsel

¶33

appeared for the petitioners/plaintiffs on behalf of Smt. Nikitha, learned counsel.

¶34

This Court does not find the need to issue notice to the respondents/defendants, as the respondents/defendants have not been served before the trial Court and an ad-interim ex-parte order is passed by this Court.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:41806 WP No. 28710 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

It is the contention of learned Senior counsel

¶39

that petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession along with the plaint, petitioners/plaintiffs have filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for an ad-interim ex-parte order of injunction restraining defendants in the suit from alienating suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

¶40

Apparently, the suit is filed for partition and separate possession. All of them are family members, claiming their right from the propositus. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents/defendants are making hectic efforts to alienate encumber or change the nature of the suit schedule property and by doing so the claims and relief sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs would get frustrated and would create multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, they have sought for a relief against the defendants to not alienate the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:41806 WP No. 28710 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The trial Court, upon hearing the parties, issued

¶45

emergent notice on IA Nos.1 and 2 and issued summons to the defendants and did not pass any order on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with

¶46

Section 151 of CPC, aggrieved by which the petitioners are before the Court.

¶47

Learned Senior counsel submits that though notice is ordered, the respondents/defendants have not appeared and they are deliberately avoiding the service of notice. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, it becomes the duty and obligation of the trial Court to deal with the application considering the urgency addressed in the affidavit and the hardship or inconvenience that would be

¶48

caused by not granting such relief. Three essential requirements are required to be considered, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship that would be caused to the aggrieved party. Presently, the suit is filed for partition and separation possession. The

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41806 WP No. 28710 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

plaintiffs and the defendants are family members. There is

¶52

an apprehension of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the defendants may alienate and encumber and change the nature of the suit schedule property, creating multiplicity of proceedings.

¶53

Under such circumstances, I do not find any legal impediment in allowing the said application and with a direction to the respondents/defendants to not alienate and change the nature of the suit schedule property, till

¶54

the next date of hearing. The trial Court could have granted this relief as an ad-interim temporary measure, and the defendants on appearance could have given liberty to file the statement of objections to the application and upon hearing both the parties, the trial Court can pass

¶55

an order independently of the observations made by this Court. The very purpose of filing an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC is to preserve and protect the property to the status of what it is and also restrain the defendants from causing any

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41806 WP No. 28710 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

damage, injury to the property and so also to the plaintiff’s rights.

¶59

Under the circumstances, in the present case on hand petitioners/plaintiffs has made out a valid ground, prima facie case is made out. The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. So also, much hardship would be caused to the petitioners/plaintiffs if an ad-interim order is not granted in his favour, by restraining the defendants, from not alienating the suit schedule property. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i. The petition is disposed of .

¶62

ii. An ad-interim order of temporary injunction is granted, restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule property, till the next date of hearing of the matter, before the trial Court.

¶63