Karnataka High Court
Sri V Nagarajappa vs Smt Munithayamma on 5 July, 2021
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
M.F.A.NO.2674 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. V. NAGARAJAPPA,
S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED
2. SRI. N. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O. SRI. V. NAGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
VENKATESHWARA NAGAR (KALLIPALYA),
JAKKUR POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURUL - 560 064.
3. M/S. MITHUNA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1342,
5TH FLOOR, SKANDA TOWERS,
DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR,
M.C.E.H.S. LAYOUT, JAKKUR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 064,
REPT. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. HANUMANTHA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA,
D/O. LATE BYRAPPA,
W/O. SRI. DYAVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RA/T NO. 18,
SRIRAMAPURA VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 049.
2. SRI. E. RAMANNA.
S/O. LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 177,
JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE,
MANDURU POST,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 049.
3. SRI. M. NAGARAJ,
S/O. LATE MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 368,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
HEBBAL,
BENGALURU - 560 024.
4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA.
D/O. LATE MARAPPA,
W/O. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT LAKKONDAHALLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129.
5. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA,
D/O. LATE MARAPPA,
W/O. C. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT GADDADANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MANDIBELE POST,
DEVENAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
3
6. SMT. LALITHAMMA,
D/O. LATE MARAPPA,
W/O. C. PILLA ANJINE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT LAKKONDAHALLI,
HOSAKOTE TLAUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
7. SMT. SARASWATHI,
W/O. SATHISH,
D/O. LATE. VENKATAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
8. SMT. MANJULA,
D/O. LATE. VENKATAMMA
W/O. K. SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 73,
KOTHANURU DINNE,
JP NAGAR, 8TH PHASE,
CHURCH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
9. SMT. ROOPA,
D/O. LATE VENKATAMMA,
W/O. SONNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 84,
1ST 'C' CROSS,
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
T. DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 057.
10. SMT. MAMATHA,
D/O. LATE VENKATAMMA,
W/O. V.N. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT VAGATA VILLAGE,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
4
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 23.04.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 9 IN
O.S.NO.606/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the material on record.
2. Appellants / defendants are aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 23.04.2021 passed by the trial Court on
I.A.No.9 filed by the respondents / plaintiffs for temporary
injunction restraining the appellants / defendants from selling,
alienating, encumbering or creating any charge over the suit
schedule property shown in the said application. It is the
grievance of the appellants that despite filing objections to the
said application, the trial Court committed a grave and serious
error of law by passing unreasoned, non-speaking and cryptic
order restraining the appellants / defendants from alienating,
encumbering or selling the suit schedule property, without any
application of mind and without assigning any reasons thereby
warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. It
is also submitted that the matter was not taken up even on the
next date of hearing i.e., on 07.06.2021 by the trial Court and
instead, the aforesaid interim order dated 23.04.2021 has
been extended till the next date of hearing i.e., till 19.08.2021
resulting in irreparable injury and hardship to the appellants.
3. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for
the appellants, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate
that the same is cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned order
passed by the trial Court without assigning reasons and
without application of mind. It is also relevant to state that
despite not disposing of the I.A.No.9 by the impugned order,
the trial Court has not posted the said application for hearing
on 19.08.2021. However, having regard to the fact that the
matter was subsequently adjourned from 07.06.2021 to
19.08.2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits /
demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate
to dispose of this appeal reserving liberty in favour of the
appellants to get the case preponed / advanced before the
trial Court from 19.08.2021 to 09.07.2021 after notifying the
respondents so as to enable the trial Court to consider and
dispose of I.A.No.9 on merits by a speaking order after giving
opportunity to both sides, in accordance with law, within a
period of two weeks from 09.07.2021.
4. In the event there is vacancy of the post of the
Presiding Officer of the trial Court, before whom the aforesaid
suit is pending, the Presiding Officer who is holding in-charge /
concurrent charge of the said trial Court is directed to comply
with this order as stated supra.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, appeal stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SV
