Karnataka High Court
Sri G Ananth vs Sri Krishna Murthy on 10 January, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
MFA No. 4274 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 4276 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4274 OF 2020(CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4276 OF 2020(CPC)
IN MFA 4274/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI G ANANTH
S/O V GURURAJA RAO
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2. SMT RADHIKA PAI
W/O G ANANTH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.41
3RD MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAVARAIAH GARDEN
TYAGARAJANAGARA
BENGALURU-560028.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
DHANALAKSHMI AND:
MURTHY
Location: High SRI KRISHNA MURTHY
Court of
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
S/O LATE LAKSHMAN PILLAI
RESIDING AT NO.1235/B
11TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR
3RD STAGE, PRAKASH NAGARA
BENGALURU-560060.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.H.V. MANJUNATHA., ADVOCATE)
-2-
MFA No. 4274 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 4276 of 2020
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.4.01.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.6873/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-36),
ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
IN MFA 4276/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI G ANANTH
S/O V GURURAJA RAO
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2. SMT RADHIKA PAI
W/O G ANANTH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.41
3RD MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
JAVARAIAH GARDEN, TYAGARAJANAGARA
BENGALURU-560028.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
S/O LATE LAKSHMAN PILLAI
RESIDING AT NO.1235/B
11TH MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR
3RD STAGE, PRAKASH NAGARA
BENGALURU-560060.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.H.V. MANJUNATHA., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.4.01.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN
O.S.NO.6873/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL
-3-
MFA No. 4274 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 4276 of 2020
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-36),
ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSON, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the defendant
challenging the order dated 04.01.2020 passed by the
XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH-36) on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.6873/2018
whereby the trial Court has allowed I.A.No.1 filed by the
plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and
granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff
restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with
the possession of the plaintiff over plaint 'B' schedule
property until further orders and rejected I.A.No.2 filed by
defendant No.2 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
2. For the sake of the convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction
before the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru in O.S.No.6873/2018. Along with the suit, he
MFA No. 4274 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 4276 of 2020
has also filed I.A.No.1 under XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC
seeking the Court to restrain the defendants from
interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over 'B'
schedule property. Defendant No.2 also filed I.A.No.2
under XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying the Court to
restrain the plaintiff from interfering with the 'B' schedule
property.
4. The trial Court by order dated 04.01.2020 has
passed the impugned order whereby rejected I.A.No.2
filed by defendant No.2 and allowed I.A.No.1 filed by the
plaintiff and temporary injunction has been granted
restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with
the possession of the plaintiff over plaint 'B' schedule
property. The said order is operating from January 2020.
5. Under this circumstance and in the interest of
justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the cases, since the suit filed by the plaintiff is only for
bare injunction, these appeals can be disposed of directing
MFA No. 4274 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 4276 of 2020
the trial Court to dispose of the suit within three months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within
thee months from the date of the receipt of certified copy
of this order.
The parties are directed to co-operate for the early
disposal of the suit.
It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the
merits of the cases.
In view of disposal of these appeals, all pending
applications do not survive for consideration. Hence, the
same are also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA
