A.N. Sagar vs The Secretary
2023 Latest Caselaw 5789 Kant

                                                -1-
                                                         NC: 2023:KHC:29644
                                                      RSA No. 1097 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                           BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1097 OF 2023 (INJ)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    A.N. SAGAR
                         S/O. A. S. NAGARAJ,
                         AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                         R/AT ANDAGERE,
                         MUTTUR HOBLI,
                         HAROGOLIGE POST,
                         THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
                         SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT

                                (BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.    THE SECRETARY
                         THE SHIVAMOGGA ARECANUT MANDY
                         MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
Digitally signed
                         A.P.M.C. YARD,
by SHARANYA T            SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201.
Location: HIGH                                               ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                        THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
                   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.03.2023
                   PASSED IN RA.NO.27/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
                   JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
                   AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
                   12.04.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.47/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
                   II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI.

                        THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
                   THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:29644
                                             RSA No. 1097 of 2023




                             JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission.

Heard the appellant's counsel.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant/plaintiff

before the Trial Court that, plaintiff sought for an order of

injunction against conducting the public auction about the suit

schedule properties by the respondent. The respondent has

provided agricultural loan. The father of the first plaintiff and

the husband of the second plaintiff have obtained the loan in

the defendant Co-operative Bank. The defendant also made

paper publication dated 25.3.2015 in 'Chalagara Kannada daily

news paper' towards the public auction of the properties

bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas and Sy.No.6

measuring 21 guntas situated at Andagere Village, Mathur

Hobli, Thirthahalli Taluk.

3. Defendant appeared and filed written statement denied

all averments made in the plaint. The Trial Court also framed

the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and

appellant is examined as P.W.1 and produced 10 documents as

Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand respondent also examined

NC: 2023:KHC:29644 RSA No. 1097 of 2023

one witness as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D7. The Trial

Court having considered the material on record dismissed the

suit. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an appeal

is filed in R.A.No.27/2022 and the First Appellate Court also on

considering the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the

points and answered points No.1 and 2 as affirmative and point

No.3 in negative and comes to the conclusion that the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court not required any

interference.

4. The counsel appearing for the appellant submits that,

both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit

and also counsel would vehemently contend that both the

Courts not considered the material on record in right

perspective. Hence, it requires interference.

5. Having heard the appellants counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record and considering the

nature of suit and relief sought in the Trial Court is for the relief

of permanent injunction, that too restraining the defendant

from conducting the public auction about the suit schedule

properties, the very initiation of suit itself is not maintainable

NC: 2023:KHC:29644 RSA No. 1097 of 2023

and plaintiff in the plaint itself has stated categorically that

before conducting an auction, a public auction of notice was

issued in the paper and father had availed loan from the bank

and by way of an order of injunction, the said nature of suit

cannot be entertained and hence, I do not find any error

committed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate

Court in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal and the very

contention that this Court has to frame substantive question of

law that both the Courts have not considered the material on

record in a proper perspective cannot be accepted and hence, I

do not find any ground to entertain the second appeal by

invoking Section 100 of CPC considering the nature of suit and

also the relief as sought in the suit.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE AP