Dr. P. Sreeramulu Reddy, vs M. Krishna,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1894 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

                       BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

             M.F.A.No.1694/2021(CPC)

BETWEEN:

DR. P.SREERAMULU REDDY,
S/O LATE SRI. P. GANGI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.17-101,
SUNDAR IYYAR STREET,
CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 001.
                                      ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. H.V.PRAVEEN GOWDA, ADV.)

AND:

SRI. M. KRISHNA,
S/O LATE C.MANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.141/1, 4TH MAIN,
SHARADAMBA NAGARA,
BEHIND SHARADAMBA TEMPLE,
JALAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 014.                 ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PARASHURAM.R. HATTARAKIHAL, ADV., FOR C-R-1)


      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF
CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:27.09.2019 PASSED ON
I.A.No.1 IN O.S.No.199/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING
                                2



THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF
CPC.

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

                         JUDGMENT

1. By the impugned order an injunction is granted

restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property.

2. At Paragraph 3 of the impugned order, it is stated that

the defendant appeared through his counsel on 03.06.2019

and the Court had ordered that objections were not filed on

13.08.2019. It is therefore, clear that an order of injunction

was granted in the absence of any objections by the

defendant.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that

the appellant has in fact filed O.S.No.25529/2021 in which a

prayer for declaration is also made. He submits that in the

said suit, an application has been filed by the appellant

seeking for an order of injunction.

4. having regard to the fact that no objections were filed

to I.A.No.I and also having regard to the fact that the

appellant has himself filed O.S.No.25529/2021 for

declaration, I am of view, it would be in the interest of justice

if the impugned order is set-aside and the trial Court is

directed to reconsider I.A.No.I afresh after giving the

appellant an opportunity of filing the objections.

5. As it is brought to the notice of this court that a suit for

declaration in O.S.No.25529/2021 has been filed in respect of

the very same property, it would also be in the interest of

justice to direct that O.S.No.25529/2021 be withdrawn from

CCH-58 and be transferred to XXXIX Additional City Civil

Judge (CCH-30), Bengaluru.

6. The trial Court shall reconsider I.A.No.I and also the

application filed in O.S.No.25529/2021 and pass appropriate

orders. Till the said applications are considered, both the

parties shall maintain status-quo.

7. It is stated that O.S.No.199/2019 is posted on

16.04.2021. The trial Court is directed to secure the records

in O.S.No.25529/2021 and dispose of the application filed

therein and also I.A.No.I filed in O.S.No.199/2019 on or

before 24.04.2021.

8. If any application is filed in O.S.No.199/2019 seeking to

restrain the respondent from putting up any further

construction, the same shall also be considered by the trial

Court along with I.A.No.I.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GH