Shivashankara Reddy N vs R Srikanth
2022 Latest Caselaw 3717 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 04 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

            MFA NO.2300 OF 2021 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

Shivashankara Reddy N.,
S/o Narasimhareddy,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at Sajjalavaripalli Villag e,
Chelur Hob li, Bag ep alli Taluk,
Chikkab allapura District-561207.
                                            ...Appellant
(By Sri Kalyan R., Advocate)

AND:

1.   R.Srikanth,
     S/o Late A.Ramachand ra Rao,
     Aged about 53 years,
     No.1296/5, 13 t h Main, 8 t h Cross,
     Judicial Layout, Yalahanka,
     Beng aluru North,
     Beng aluru-560065.

2.   Smt. Asha Ravindra,
     Aged about 52 years,
     W/o Late Ravind ra,
     Residing at Raghu Resid ency,
     Flat No.102, Opposite PWD Quarters,
     Urva Stores, Ashok Nag ar Post,
     Mang aluru-575006.

3.   Jishnu M Ravindra,
     Aged about 26 years,
     S/o Late Ravindra,
                              :: 2 ::


     Residing at Raghu Resid ency,
     Flat No.102, Opposite PWD Quarters,
     Urva Stores, Ashok Nag ar Post,
     Mang aluru-575006.

4.   Jeshma M.Ravindra,
     Aged about 20 years,
     D/o Late Ravindra,
     Residing at Raghu Resid ency,
     Flat No.102, Opposite PWD Quarters,
     Urva Stores, Ashok Nag ar Post,
     Mang aluru-575006.
                                       ...Respondents

     This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of
CPC, against the order d ated 08.03.2021 p assed on
I.A.No.I in O.S.No.3729/2020 on the file of the VIII
Additional   City   Civil   and   Sessions   Judge   CCH-15,
Beng aluru, allowing the I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.


     This MFA coming on for admission this d ay, the
Court delivered the following:


                        JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Kalyan R, learned counsel for the

appellant.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant

challenging the order of the trial court on I.A.1

filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The :: 3 ::

appellant is defendant no.4 in O.S.No.3729/2020

on the file of VIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bengaluru. The first respondent is the

plaintiff seeking for specific performance based on

agreement dated 21.02.2018. The first

respondent being the plaintiff filed an application

for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants

from alienating the schedule property till disposal

of the suit. The said application has stood allowed

and therefore this appeal. Learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the appellant has no

intention to sell the schedule property. In this

view, even if this impugned order is allowed to

remain, the interest of the appellant will not be

affected in any way. The appellant is the

purchaser of the schedule property from defendant

no.1 to 3 after the agreement came into existence.

Therefore he is the proper party to the suit. Since

defendant no.4 has no intention to dispose of the :: 4 ::

property, I do not think that this appeal is worth

to be admitted. Hence appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd