Smt. Vijayakumari vs Somashekhar Reddy

                             1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

              M.F.A.NO.5277 OF 2020(CPC)

BETWEEN

1.    SMT. VIJAYAKUMARI
      W/O LATE SRI SHIVARAMAN
      AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

2.    S VASANTH KUMAR
      S/O LATE SRI SHIVARAMAN
      AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

3.    SMT. AMBIKA
      W/O SRI S VASANTH KUMAR
      AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

4.    S PADMANABHA
      S/O LATE SRI SHIVARAMAN
      AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

5.    SMT. ARCHANA
      W/O S PADMANABHA
      AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

6.    KUM. KEERTHANA
      D/O SRI S VASANTH KUMAR
      AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS SINCE MINOR
      REPT BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
      S. VASANTH KUMAR, APPELLANT 2.

7.    KUM. JOSHITA
      D/O SRI S VASANTH KUMAR
      AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, SINCE MINOR
      REPT BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
      SRI S VASANTH KUMAR APPELLANT 2.
                               2




8.      KUM. YASHINI
        D/O SRI S PADMANABHA
        AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, SINCE MINOR
        REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
        SRI S PADMANABHA , PLAINTIFF -4.
        ALL ARE R/A NO.1082, 3RD CROSS,
        HANUMAN TEMPLE, SRIRAMPURAM
        BANGALORE - 560 021.

9.      SMT. S K LATHA
        D/O LATE SRI SHIVARAMAN
        AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
        R/AT NO. 6/35A, 3RD CROSS
        6TH BLOCK, K B TEMPLE ROAD
        RAJAJINAGAR
        BENGALURU - 560 010.
                                                   ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

SOMASHEKHAR REDDY
S/O LATE SRI MUNISHAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT RAJANKUNTE YELAHANKA
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE - 560 064.
                                               ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C. PRADEEP YADAV, ADVOCATE)

        THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r ) OF CPC
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 27.11.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 1 INS
O.S.NO. 1668/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL   JUDGE,   BENGALURU    RURAL    DISTRICT,    BENGALURU,
REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2
R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

        THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 3



                           JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

2. In view of the fact that there are several contentious on law and fact that arises for consideration in the suit urged by both sides, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, it would be just and proper to dispose of this appeal directing both the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property as hereunder.

3. Hence, I pass the following order:-

(i) Appeal is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 passed on I.A.No.2 filed in O.S.No.1668/2018 by the trial court .

(ii) Both the appellants and respondent are directed to maintain status-quo regarding the title and possession as well as the nature and character of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

(iii) The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iv) All rival contentions urged by both sides are kept open to be decided in the suit by the trial court and the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit without being influenced by the order impugned in the present appeal.

(v) Interim applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE Srl.