Karnataka High Court
M/S Amt Venture Township Llp vs Sri G Purushotham Naidu on 25 January, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
MFA No. 392 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S AMT VENTURE TOWNSHIP LLP
REGISTERED OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 40/1A, 6TH
FLOOR
BASAPPA COMPLEX, LAVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU-
560 001
(REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER- PROPOSED
SRI MUNEGOWDA)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRIVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI NARASIMHA
PRASAD S D., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by C AND:
MALATHI
Location: 1. SRI G PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU
High Court S/O G MUNIRATHNAM NAIDU,
of AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Karnataka
NO.A-24, LEGACY ARISTONE APARTMENTS, 5TH
MAIN, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
ANANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
2. SRI MUNISHAMAPPA
S/O LATE PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/O DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
-2-
MFA No. 392 of 2023
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
3. SMT SAROJAMMA
D/O MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
4. PAVITHRA
D/O MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
5. SMT APARNA
D/O MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
6. SRI VENKATARAYAPPA
S/O LATE PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
-3-
MFA No. 392 of 2023
7. SMT MAMATHA
D/O VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
8. SMT SAVITHA
D/O VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
9. KUM THANUJA
D/O VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
10. SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
11. SMT NARAYANAMMA
D/O LATE PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
-4-
MFA No. 392 of 2023
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
12. SRI NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE KURESHAMMA @ MALLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O CHANNARAYAPATNA
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
13. SMT BACHAMMA
D/O KURESHAMMA @ MALLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O DODDASAGARAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA
HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
14. SMT HANUMAKKA
D/O KURESHAMMA @ MALLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI
TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
15. SRI A CHANDRA SHEKAR
S/O LATE ASHWATHANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O ANNESHWARA VILLAGE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATASATYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR
CAVEATOR/ RESPONDENT NO.1)
-5-
MFA No. 392 of 2023
MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2022
PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 AND 4 IN OS.NO. 1142/2022 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) by the
proposed defendant No.15 challenging the order dated
17.12.2022 whereby ex-parte temporary injunction has
been granted directing the proposed defendant No.15 to
maintain status-quo in respect of the plaint schedule
property.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff
filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. Along
with the plaint, he has filed an application under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code. During the
pendency of consideration of the application, the plaintiff
MFA No. 392 of 2023
has filed IA for imleading the proposed defendant No.15 -
the appellant herein, as party to the suit. Notice has been
ordered on the impleading application. In the meantime,
the trial court has passed the impugned order. Being
aggrieved by the same, the proposed defendant No.15 is
before this Court.
4. Sri Srivatsa S., the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant has contended that IA No.2
has been filed for impleading the appellant herein as a
party to the suit. Notice has been issued on application
for imleading returnable by 13.01.2023. In the
meanwhile, the plaintiff has preponed the case and before
the proposed defendant No.15 was impleaded, he has
obtained an interim order against the proposed defendant
No.15. The impugned order is passed contrary to the
provisions of law, without giving any opportunity to the
appellant herein. Hence, he sought for allowing the
appeal.
MFA No. 392 of 2023
5. Per contra, Sri Venkatasatyanarayana, the learned
counsel appearing for the plaintiff has contended that
when the plaintiff has come to know that his vendor has
executed the sale deed in favour of the proposed
defendant No.15, apprehending that, taking advantage of
the sale deed the proposed defendant No.15 may alienate
the property and he may create third party interest, the
plaintiff moved he matter for preponing and obtained ex-
parte interim order. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the appeal papers.
7. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed a suit
for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.1142/2022
and he has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules
1 and 2. In the meantime, he has filed IA No.2 for
impleading the appellant as proposed respondent No.15 on
30.09.2022. The trial court has issued notice on IA No.2
MFA No. 392 of 2023
returnable by 13.01.2023. In the meantime, the matter
has been preponed. The trial court has passed an order
on 17.12.2022 directing the proposed defendant No.15 to
maintain status-quo. Since the impugned orderis passed
without impleading the proposed defendant No.15 as a
party and even though the date has been fixed on
13.01.2023, without notice to the proposed defendant
No.15 the matter has been preponed and the interim order
has been passed. Hence, the impugned order is
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The order dated
17.12.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Devanahalli on IA Nos. 3 and 4 in O.S.No.1142/2022 is set
aside. Since the plaintiff has the apprehension that the
proposed defendant No.15 may alienate the property and
may change the nature of the land, the parties are
directed to appear before the trial court on 31.01.2023 at
11.00 a.m. without any further notice. The trial court is
MFA No. 392 of 2023
directed to consider the application filed by the plaintiff
under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The plaintiff is
directed to serve plaint copy and IA copies on the
proposed defendant No.15, forthwith.
It is made clear that the trial court shall pass the
order afresh, in accordance with law, without being
influenced by the observations made in the course of this
order.
In view of disposal of the main appeal, all pending
applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CM/-
