Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar Gurusiddappa ... vs Smt. Gayatri W/O Ramesh Bagur on 18 August, 2023
Bench: Anant Ramanath Byarhj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9083
MFA No. 102116 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102116 OF 2016 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRASHEKAR GURUSIDDAPPA SULLAD
AGE: 67 YEARS, R/O: GANESH PET,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. MANOHAR
S/O GURUSIDDAPPA SULLAD
AGE: 64 YEARS, R/O: GANESH PET,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
3. SRI. NIJALINGAPPA
S/O GURUSIDDAPPA SULLAD
AGE: 60 YEARS, R/O: GANESH PET,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
4. SRI. SHANMUKAPPA
Digitally signed by
S/O GURUSIDDAPPA SULLAD
SAROJA HANGARAKI
Date: 2023.08.22
15:13:12 -0700
AGE: 57 YEARS, R/O: GANESH PET,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
5. SMT. SHOBHA
W/O PRAKASH SULLAD,
AGE: 47 YEARS, R/O: GANESH PET,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
6. KUMARI. PAVANA
D/O PRAKASH SULLAD,
AGE: 28 YEARS, R/O: GANESH PET,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9083
MFA No. 102116 of 2016
7. SMT. DEEPA
D/O HUCHANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 32 YEARS, R/O: ADNUR,
TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GAYATRI
W/O RAMESH BAGUR
AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O: GANESH PET,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. KUM. ARCHANADEVI
W/O MALLIKARJUN MALAGI
AGE: 31 YEARS, R/O: GANESH PET,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
3. KUM. SHILPA
D/O PRAKASH SULLAD
AGE: 31 YEARS, R/O: GANESH PET,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
4. MANAGER,
KALLAPPANNA AWADE ICHALAKARANI,
JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,
GANESH PET, AZAD ROAD, NEAR CBT,
HUBBALLI.
5. SRI. JABBARKHAN HAYATHKAN HONNALLI
AGE: 72 YEARS, R/O: NEAR WOODLAND HOTEL,
HUBBALLI, TQ: DHARWAD.
6. SRI. KRISHNA TUKARAM REVANKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O: MARATA GALLI,
BEHIND DECCAN TALKIES,
HUBBALLI, TQ: DHARWAD.
7. SMT. PITAJIBHAI
W/O VIMALCHAND TELSARA
AGE: 62 YEARS, R/O: SHIVAGANGA LAYOUT,
BEHIND K.E.B OFFICE, MADHURA COLONY,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9083
MFA No. 102116 of 2016
KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
8. SRI. SHIVANAD HANUMANTAPPA JOGINA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O: GABBUR GALLI,
AKKIHONDA, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
9. SRI. KESHAVA SHANTAPPA VERNEKAR,
AGE: 62 YEARS, R/O: SHANTI KUNJ,
NO.4659B, PRAGATI COLONY,
SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
10. SRI. UGAMCHAND DEEPACHAND JAIN
AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O: SUVIDA COLONY,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. V.G.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. P.G.CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
NOTICE TO R4, R7, R8, R9 AND R10 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, PRAYS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
11.12.2014 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2, IN O.S.NO.259/2013, PASSED
BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, WITH COST THROUGH OUT, IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9083
MFA No. 102116 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is filed against the order granting
injunction in an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules
1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the defendants
No.1 to 8 and 10 to 15 are restrained by temporary
injunction from alienating suit schedule properties, except
Item No.1 of suit schedule 'D' property. Consequently, an
application at I.A.No.7 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC to
vacate exparte interim order is also rejected.
3. Defendants No.1 to 8 have filed this appeal
challenging the order passed on I.A.No.2 granting
injunction. This order of injunction is passed on
11.12.2014. The suit is filed in the year 2013.
4. It is stated at the bar that the suit is still
pending consideration. As could be noticed from the
aforementioned facts, the order of injunction restraining
the appellants from alienating the suit schedule properties,
(except Item No.1 of the 'D' schedule) is operating for last
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9083
MFA No. 102116 of 2016
9 years. Since the suit is pending for last 10 years, this
Court is of the view that interest of justice would be met in
case the parties to the suit are directed to co-operate with
the trial Court for early disposal of the suit. For this reason
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretionary
order passed by the trial Court.
5. The parties shall cooperate in early disposal of
the suit. Since the suit is of the year 2010, the trial Court
shall endeavor to decide the suit within six months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. Registry to send the certified copy of this order
to the jurisdictional trial Court.
7. All contentions of the parties are kept open as
nothing is decided on merits of respective claim.
8. With these observations, the appeal is disposed
of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
