Sri R G Prakash vs Sri Chowrareddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 5120 Kant

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

       WRIT PETITION NO.6028 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

SRI R G PRAKASH
S/O SRI R GOVINDASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.299/1,
VEERANAPALYA MAIN ROAD
NEAR RAMA TEMPLE,
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU-560 045.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MITHUN G A, ADVOCATE)

AND

      1. SRI CHOWRAREDDY
         S/O LATE SANDHYANGAPPA
         AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

      2. SMT. JOSPINE
         W/O CHOWRAREDDY
         AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

      3. SMT. MARY PARIMALA
         D/O CHOWRAREDDY
         W/O PRADEEP KUMAR
         AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

      4. SMT. NIRMALA
                            2




       D/O CHOWRAREDDY
       W/O PAPAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

    5. SMT. STELLA MARY
       D/O CHOWRAREDDY
       W/O DEVASAGAYAM
       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

    6. SMT. BABY SHALINI
       D/O CHOWRAREDDY
       W/O NAVEEN PRASAD
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

       ALL ARE RESIDING AT
       SANDHYAPPA LAYOUT
       2ND CROSS, VEERANAPALYA
       ARABIC COLLEGE POST
       BENGALURU-560 045.

    7. SRI B A GANESH
       S/O ANJINAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
       R/AT NO.62, BYRATHI VILLAGE
       SHIVARAMKARANTH NAGAR POST
       BENGALURU-560 077.
                                        ....RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07TH MARCH, 2022 PASSED IN
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.NO.1604 OF 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY
THE LEARNED LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-60) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TRIAL
COURT TO HEAR ON IA.NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND PASS AN
INTERIM ORDER OF INJUNCTION AS SOUGHT FOR IA.NO.1.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                     3




                             ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the

order dated 07th March, 2022 in Original Suit No.1601 of 2022

on the file of the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru.

2. The facts leading to the filing of Writ Petition by the

plaintiff are that, the plaintiff has filed suit seeking permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the

suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed application under Order

XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 seeking of Code of Civil Procedure interim

relief and the trial Court, after considering the averments made

in the affidavit accompanying the application, issued emergent

notice and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff/plaintiff

has presented this Writ Petition.

3. I have heard Sri Mithun G.A, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, who contended that the trial Court ought to

have considered the averments made in the affidavit

accompanying the application and should have passed orders

granting ad interim injunction. In this regard, he places reliance

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MOHD.

YUNUS KHAN v. STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS reported in (2010)15

SCC 539.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by

the trial Court, wherein the trial Court issued emergent notice on

the application as well as the on the suit, returnable by 08th

April, 2022. The reasons assigned by the trial Court is that the

other side is required to be heard before considering IA.1 filed by

the plaintiff/petitioner herein. Having noticed the same, I am of

the view that the relief sought for by the petitioner is of

discretionary in nature and has to be considered with judicial

sound principles of enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a

catena of decisions. Undisputably, IA.1 filed by the plaintiff

before the trial Court is pending consideration and in that view of

the matter, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the

impugned order passed by the trial Court that IA.1 will have to

be considered after hearing the defendants. I have also carefully

considered the judgment referred to by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has

held that the trial Court has to record reasons while considering

the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of

Civil Procedure. In the instant petition, the application filed by

the petitioner is still pending consideration before the trial Court

and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the case on

hand. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.

However, taking into account the urgency pleaded by the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, trial Court is direct

to consider the IA.I within three months from the date of receipt

certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn