Allowed¶35

State Bank of India v. Sri. Dayananda

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2025WP/30672/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ; Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC; Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC; 30-day limit for disposal of injunction application; delay/prolongation by trial Court; ad interim ex parte order; direction for expeditious disposal within 15 days; no opinion on merits; Karnataka High Court; GM-CPC; SBI Stressed Assets Management Branch v. Dayananda; O.S. No.329/2024, Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal to dispose of the I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S. No. 329/2024 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ¶35

State Bank of India Vs Sri. Dayananda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution should be allowed by directing the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal to dispose of the I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC in O.S. No.329/2024 within an outer limit of 30 days.

¶22

Court's answer

No notice to the respondent was necessary, as no relief was sought against him and no adverse order was passed against him.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Since Order XXXIX Rule 3A of CPC contemplates disposal of the interlocutory application within 30 days and the trial Court had prolonged the matter for more than a year even after the defendant filed written statement, objections and written arguments, it is obligatory on the trial Court to dispose of the application on merits after hearing both parties and not to prolong the matter.

¶28

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits of the underlying matter; the direction concerns only timely disposal of the interlocutory application.obiter¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — Petitioner, defendant No.2 in O.S. No.329/2024 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal (suit filed 27.4.2024 for declaration and permanent injunction, with an ad interim ex parte order operating against the defendants under an application in Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC), sought a direction for expeditious disposal of the pending I.A. — Written statement, objections and written arguments (dated 2.8.2025) already on record; trial Court prolonged the matter for more than a year while granting time to the plaintiff, notwithstanding Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC contemplating disposal within 30 days — HELD: notice to the respondent unnecessary as no relief was sought nor any adverse order passed against him; it is obligatory on the trial Court to dispose of such an application on merits after hearing both parties and not to prolong the matter — Petition ALLOWED with a direction to dispose of the I.A. within fifteen days from receipt of copy of the order; no opinion expressed on the merits of the matter.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40981 WP No. 30672 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.30672 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

STATE BANK OF INDIA STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH 2^ND FLOOR, LHO CAMPUS, NO. 65, ST.MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SRI.GAJANAN VALU RATHOD, S/O. VALU RATHOD, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. DAYANANDA S/O. LATE B.N.THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.207/2, RANJITHA FARMS, BOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 099.

¶14

… RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL TO DISPOSE OF I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 & 2 OF CPC PENDING IN OS NO. 329/2024 WITHIN AN OUTER LIMIT OF 30 DAYS.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:40981 WP No. 30672 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

¶22

This Court does not find any need to issue notice to the respondent as no relief is sought against him and so also no adverse order is passed against him. The only relief that is sought in the present writ petition is to direct the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal to dispose of I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC in O.S. No.329/2024 within an outer limit of 30 days.

¶23

It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that suit came to be filed on 27.4.2024 for declaration and consequential relief of Permanent Injunction against the petitioner/defendant and others. Alongwith the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. There was an ad interim exparte order granted against the defendants. The petitioner being the defendant No.2 filed the written statement and also objections to the application. The petitioner also filed written arguments on 2.8.2025. However, the trial Court has not yet disposed of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC,

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:40981 WP No. 30672 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

on merits. The trial Court is granting time to the respondent/plaintiff for one reason or the other and so also respondent/plaintiff is taking time for one or the other reason. Hence, petitioner is before this Court for a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the application expeditiously.

¶28

Order XXXIX Rule 3A of CPC contemplates disposal of the application within 30 days. The trial Court has prolonged the matter more than a year. The defendant has already filed the written statement and also objections to the application. The defendant has also filed the written arguments on 2.8.2025. Under the circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the trial Court to dispose of the application on merits after hearing both parties and not to prolong the matter.

¶29

In view of the above, having regard to the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3A of CPC, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of I.A. filed Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC expeditiously. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:40981 WP No. 30672 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

i) The petition is allowed .

¶35

ii) A direction is issued to the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal to dispose of I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S. No. 329/2024 within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶36

iii) This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter.

¶37

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶38

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

State Bank of India v. Sri. Dayananda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Dayananda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Yerramsetti Satya Kama Babu Vs Mrs. a Dakshayini

Smt. Kalavathi R., Vs Sri. Munirangaiah

Sri. Vineeth Kumar. M. G. Vs Smt. Girija. M

Sri H G Surendra Vs Sri C C Goutham

Sri a M Nachappa Vs M K Paramashivaiah

Sri P Venkatesh Vs Sri C K Prasad