Sri Sathyanarayana G Morey vs Sri Pramod
2022 Latest Caselaw 8785 Kant

                            -1-



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3931/2022 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA G MOREY
S/O LATE M GAJENDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O NO.5A, 1ST CROSS,
N.R.COLONY
MURUGESHPALYA,
VAMANAPURA POST
BENGALURU- 560 008.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RUDRACHAR B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI PRAMOD
S/O KUSHAL RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O NO.2, N.R.COLONY,
VIMANAPURA POST
WARD NO. 88,
BENGALURU- 560 017.
                                         ... RESPONDENT

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) READ WITH SECTION 151
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
08.10.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO. 5173/2021 ON THE FILE OF
THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, ISSUING EMERGENT NOTICE ON I.A. NO.1.
                              -2-



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

                         JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S. No.5173/2021 on the file of

the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court'] is aggrieved by the

civil Court's order dated 08.10.2021 in issuing Notice on

I.A. No.1 and suit summons without grant of ex parte

order. This Court, in 'R. Ravindranath Manvi v. K.B.

Ramesh and Others' in MFA No.3837/2018, which is

disposed of on 21.12.2018, has opined that a person

aggrieved by refusal to grant ad interim ex parte order

cannot avail remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1[r] of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, 'the CPC'].

The learned counsel for the appellant, in view of

this decision, seeks leave to withdraw the appeal to avail

appropriate remedy and he also requests for return of

certified copies filed in the appeal.

The appeal, therefore, stands disposed of with all

liberties to the appellant to call in question the

impugned order, and the Registry is directed to return

the certified copy of the order filed in this appeal

forthwith.

SD/-

JUDGE

AN/-