Karnataka High Court
Sri H.C. Subramanyam vs Sri H C Mallikarjunaiah on 6 June, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
MFA No. 8379 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8379 OF 2016 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI H.C. SUBRAMANYAM,
LATE CHOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO.225, 2ND BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 079.
2. SRI H.C.RAJAGOPAL,
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1466, 4TH CROSS,
CHANDRA LAYOUT,
1ST STAGE, II PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 040.
Digitally signed 3. SRI H.C.GANGADHAR,
by SHARANYA T S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/AT NO.4/1, 1ST CROSS,
BEHIND K.V.V. SCHOOL
SUBBANNA GARDEN,
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAMA MOHAN M, ADVOCATE,
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.05.2023,
APPEAL AGAINST APPELLANT NO.3 IS ABATED)
AND:
1. SRI H.C. MALLIKARJUNAIAH,
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
-2-
MFA No. 8379 of 2016
R/AT Y.N.HOSAKOTE,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. SRI K.V.RAMESH
S/O LATE K.PULLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
3. SRI K. RAVI KUMAR,
S/O LATE K.PULLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
R-2 AND R-3 ARE R/AT NO.96/A,
5TH CROSS, 5TH PHASE,
INDUSTRIAL TOWN, RAJAJINAGAR,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 010.
4. SRI K. RAGHAVENDRA BHAT,
S/O SRINIVASA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
5. SMT. SHASHIPRABHA,
W/O K. RAGHAVENDRA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
R-4 AND R-5 ARE R/AT NO.255,
2ND 'E' CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 079.
6. SMT. SUNITHA JAGADEESHA,
W/O BHUPALAMA KUPPAIAH JAYAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.48, 2ND MAIN,
LAZAR LAYOUT, FRAZER TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 005.
7. SRI C.R. GURUPRASATH,
S/O LATE P.R.CHELUVARAJ MUDALIAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21, 'DWARAKAMAI',
2ND STREET, 1ST BLOCK,
PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT,
KALYANAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 043.
-3-
MFA No. 8379 of 2016
8. SMT. L.SHEELAVATHI,
W/O M. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.125, 7TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION,
BANGALORE-560 030.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAMASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3,
SMT. S.K. PRATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.06.2018,
NOTICE TO R-1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT,
NOTICE TO R-4 AND R-5 IS DISPSNSEE WITH,
R-6 AND R-8 ARE SERVED.)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN
O.S.NO.2981/16 ON THE FILE OF THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, REJECTING IA NO.2 FILED
UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order dated
06.08.2016, passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.2981/2016, on
the file of the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City, rejecting I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein
prayed the Court to grant temporary injunction restraining
defendant No.7 from putting up any construction on the
suit schedule property. The Trial Court considering the
pleadings of both the parties, comes to the conclusion that
MFA No. 8379 of 2016
there is no any prima facie case and with regard to case of
purchase of that property, requires trial and hence rejected
I.A.No.2.
2. This appeal was filed in the year 2016 and the
learned counsel for the appellants submits that defendant
No.7 has already put up construction. When such being
the case, this appeal becomes infructuous. However, the
learned counsel for the appellants submits that a direction
may be given to the Trial Court to dispose of the matter,
since the suit is of the year 2016 and relief sought is for
partition.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits
that defendant No.3 passed away and no application is filed
to bring the legal representatives on record. The learned
counsel submits that before this Court, the appeal is abated
against appellant No.3 and in the suit also, the suit against
plaintiff No.3 is abated. If it is abated, the same is subject
to result of the suit.
MFA No. 8379 of 2016
4. Having considered the submissions of the
respective learned counsel and also when this appeal
becomes infructuous in view of the construction of the
building by defendant No.7, it is appropriate to direct the
Trial Court to dispose of the matter within a period of one
year. Both the parties and the respective learned counsel
are directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the case
within the time stipulated.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
