Sri. P. Ramakrishnan vs Mrs. Rajani Girish
2021 Latest Caselaw 1532 Kant

                            1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

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

               M.F.A.NO.139 OF 2021(CPC)

BETWEEN

1.    SRI. P. RAMAKRISHNAN
      S/O LATE K R NAIR
      AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
      REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN
      MRS RADHA RAMAKRISHNAN
      I.E. 2ND APPELLANT HEREIN AS APPOINTED AS HIS
      GUARDIAN UNDER MENTAL HEALTH ACT

2.    MRS RADHA RAMAKRISHNAN
      W/O P RAMAKRISHNAN
      AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

      BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1 HALL ROAD
      RICHARDS TOWN
      BANGALORE-560 005.

                                             ...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA G. MENON, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    MRS. RAJANI GIRISH
      W/O LATE GIRISH RAMAKRISHNAN
      AGED 47 YEARS

2.    MS DURGA GIRISH
      D/O LATE GIRISH RAMAKRISHNAN
      AGED 21 YEARS
                                2



3.     MS GAYATHRI GIRISH
       D/O LATE GIRISH RAMAKRISHNAN
       AGED 17 YEARS

4.     MS DEVI GIRISH
       D/O LATE GIRISH RAMAKRISHNAN
       AGED 12 YEARS

      (REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL
      GUARDIAN THE 1ST RESPONDENT)
      ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.316 BHAGWATI BLOCK
      VIJAYASRI ELIXIR, BOREWELL ROAD
      NALLURAHALLI, WHITEFIELD
      BANGALORE-560 066.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

       THIS APPEAL IS FILED ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC
AGIANST THE ORDER DATED: 15.12.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.
I.S.NO. 4819/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIV CITY CIVIL 7 SESSSION
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-65) ALLOWING THE I.A. FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 4 R/W 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC

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


                          JUDGMENT

This appeal by the defendants 1 and 2

O.S.No.4819/2020 is directed against the impugned order

passed by the trial court directing the parties to maintain

status quo in respect of the suit schedule properties till

disposal of I.As 2, 6 and 8 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs in

the suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned

counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record indicates that it is not in

dispute that the respondents instituted the aforesaid suit for

partition and separate possession of the alleged share in the

suit schedule movable and immovable properties and for other

reliefs.

4. In the said suit, plaintiffs also filed the aforesaid

applications I.As. 2, 6 and 8 for temporary injunction against

the appellants - defendants, who not only opposed the said

applications but also contested the suit. It is not in dispute

that in the first instance, the trial court has passed the ad-

interim order of temporary injunction dated 22.10.2020 on

I.As. 2, 6 and 8 referred to supra. However, subsequently,

upon the appellants filing the application under Order 39 Rule

4 CPC, despite allowing the said application, the trial court

directed the parties to maintain status quo in relation to the

suit schedule properties till disposal of I.As. 2, 6 and 8 which

are still pending consideration before the trial court. Aggrieved

by the impugned order passed by the trial court, insofar as it

relates to directing the parties to maintain status quo in

relation to the suit schedule properties till disposal of I.As. 2, 6

and 8, the appellants - defendants are before this Court by

way of the present appeal.

5. On 15.01.2021, this Court passed the following

interim order:-

"Sri. Ashok B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2 undertakes to appear on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 also.

Registry to print his name in the cause list. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on account of the impugned order passed by the trial Court directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the plaint schedule properties including schedules G and H, which are fixed deposits/deposits held by defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly and individually in State Bank of India and Canara Bank, the appellants are facing great difficulty towards expenditure involved towards day to day and medical expenses.

Under these circumstances, by way of interim arrangement and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the appellants are permitted to operate the following accounts described in the plaint schedules G and H properties as indicated below, to the extent of the upper limit/maximum limit of Rupees Two Lakhs each in respect of each of the accounts.

i. Account Nos.32160432532 and 10448569224 in State Bank of India, Richards Town Branch Bengaluru-05.

             ii.    Account     Nos.0432101011053            and
        043256000087 in       Canara Bank, D. Costa Square,
        Bengaluru-05.

The appellants to serve one more set of appeal papers along with documents, duly paginated to learned counsel for the respondents.

Re-list on 01.02.2021.

Statement of objections, if any, to be filed by the next date of hearing".

6. Both the learned counsel submits that I.A.Nos. 2, 6,

and 8 are still pending adjudication before the trial court.

Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion

on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions of the parties, I

hereby direct the trial court to dispose of I.A.Nos. 2, 6 and 8 in

accordance with law on or before 04.03.2021 after hearing

both the parties, without being influenced by the observations

and findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned order.

Till the trial court passes necessary orders on I.A.Nos.

2, 6 and 8 referred to supra, the interim order dated

15.01.2021 passed by this Court will continue to be operative

and remain in force till disposal of I.A.Nos.2, 6 and 8.

7. With the aforesaid directions, appeal stands disposed

off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Srl.