Dismissed¶40

Sri Chikkamadaiah v. Sri Chaitanya Manohar

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2026MFA/2020/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), MFA No. 2020 of 2026 (CPC), NC: 2026:KHC:16652, decided 24 March 2026 by Mrs. Justice K.S. Hemalekha (oral judgment). Appellant Chikkamadaiah (defendant, aged 81) v. respondent Chaitanya Manohar (plaintiff); counsel Prakasha M. for appellant. Keywords: condonation of 412-day delay refused - insufficient cause; interim status quo order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC upheld - no appellate interference; appeal and I.A.No.1/2026 dismissed; suit O.S.7794/2022; impugned order dated 22.10.2024.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant. The Miscellaneous First Appeal was dismissed and, consequently, I.A.No.1/2026 (condonation of delay) was also dismissed; the Trial Court's status quo order stands undisturbed. ¶40

Sri Chikkamadaiah Vs Sri Chaitanya Manohar — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant. The Miscellaneous First Appeal was dismissed and, consequently, I.A.No.1/2026 (condonation of delay) was also dismissed; the Trial Court's status quo order stands undisturbed.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the 412-day delay in filing the Miscellaneous First Appeal against the interlocutory status quo order is bona fide and should be condoned as being supported by sufficient cause. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The delay of 412 days in challenging the status quo order was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained; the reasons assigned (change of advocate/NOC, appellant's age, multiple proceedings) do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation; accordingly I.A.No.1/2026 was dismissed.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Considering the appeal on its merits notwithstanding the delay, the Court found that the impugned order preserves the subject matter of the suit and that no perversity, illegality or arbitrariness was demonstrated warranting interference; the Miscellaneous First Appeal was dismissed.

¶38

Key takeaways

Clarification that the observations made by the Trial Court while considering I.A.No.2, as well as the observations made by this Court in the present appeal, shall not influence the Trial Court while disposing of the suit on its merits independently and in accordance with law.obiter¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Defendant's Miscellaneous First Appeal (under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC as cited) against the Trial Court's order dated 22.10.2024 on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.7794/2022 (XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, CCH-12), whereby the plaintiff's temporary-injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was partly allowed and the parties directed to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit. The appeal was lodged after a delay of 412 days, with I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation on grounds of change of advocate/NOC, the appellant's age (about 81 years) and multiplicity of proceedings. The Court held the delay inordinate and not satisfactorily explained, the assigned reasons not constituting sufficient cause; nevertheless it examined the appeal on merits, found the Trial Court had weighed prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and that the impugned order preserved the suit subject matter with no perversity, illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference. The MFA and I.A.No.1/2026 were both dismissed, with a clarification that the observations made shall not influence independent disposal of the suit.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:16652 MFA No. 2020 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2020 OF 2026 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI CHIKKAMADAIAH S/O. LATE CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.90/26 2ND MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS VITTAL NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 026.

¶9

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI CHAITANYA MANOHAR S/O. LATE MANOHAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.149 1ST MAIN ROAD, MLA LAYOUT R.T NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN OS.NO.7794/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-12), PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶14

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:16652 MFA No. 2020 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the defendant calling in question, the Order dated 22.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.7794/2022 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-12) Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and directed the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record.

¶22

The plaintiff instituted a suit O.S.7794/2022 seeking relief of injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:16652 MFA No. 2020 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

The appeal is accompanied by I.A.No.1/2026

¶27

seeking condonation of delay of 412 days in filing the appeal. The reasons assigned for the delay is stated at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit which reads as under:

¶28

“4. I submit that the miscellaneous petition has been filed for having disobey the order since I am having possession by virtue of gift deed executed by the uncle of the respondent and my protection shall be protected from the respondent. One or the other reason the respondent by filing false compliant against me for enjoying the Item No.2 and 3 of the suit schedule property.

¶29

5. I submit that earlier advocate has given NOC before the Civil Court as well as before this Hon'ble Court in writ petition, hence I could not able to concentrate the order passed by this Hon'ble Court due to my age factor and moving one court to another court at the hands of the respondent. Such being the case, there is a delay in filing the above appeal and same shall be condoned. Hence it is just and necessary the delay in filing the above appeal and same may be condoned and permit us to file the above appeal. The delay in filing the appeal

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16652 MFA No. 2020 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

proceedings is bona-fide one, but not intentional one.”

¶33

The sum and substance of the reason is that due to change of advocate and issuance of NOC, coupled with appellant’s age and involvement of multiple proceedings, the appellant could not take timely steps to challenge the order and the delay is stated to be bona fide and not intentional. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the delay of 412 is inordinate in challenging the order of status quo and the delay is not satisfactorily explained. The reasons assigned do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of such inordinate delay. The impugned order pertains to an interlocutory application, wherein the Trial Court has directed to maintain status quo .

¶34

In order to see that the appeal is not dismissed

¶35

on technical grounds, this Court has considered the appeal on its merits and perused the impugned order of the Trial

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:16652 MFA No. 2020 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Court, wherein the Trial Court has recorded finding on existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The impugned order is passed to preserve the subject matter of the suit and no perversity, illegality or arbitrariness is demonstrated warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶41

ii. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2026 is also dismissed .

¶42

iii. It is clarified that the observations made by the Trial Court while considering I.A.No.2 as well as the observation made by this Court in the present appeal, shall not influence the Trial Court while disposing the suit on its merits independently and in accordance with law.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

___________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶45

AT/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri Chikkamadaiah v. Sri Chaitanya Manohar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chikkamadaiah v. Sri Chaitanya Manohar

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

Shivashankar Vs Sridhara H. S.

Smt Rajamma Vs Sri Shivalingaiah

Sri Trilok Chandar Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Sri Anand Pillappa Vs Siddharth M

Sri Babu R Vs Smt Lakshmi

N Ramachandraiah Vs Thimmanna