Karnataka High Court
M/S Sri. Venkateshwara Builders vs Sri. Nagaraja.G on 5 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30981
MFA No. 4656 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4656 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S SRI. VENKATESHWARA BUILDERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE
SRI KRISHNA RESIDENCY
NO. 5756/5-8, SBI COLONY
J.P.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 078
REP. BY ITS PARTNERS
2. D.KRISHNA
S/O LATE D.KUPPA NAIDU
AGED 56 YEARS
3. SMT.K.SUMATHI
W/O D.KRISHNA
AGED 46 YEARS
Digitally
signed by BOTH ARE R/AT #56/6
MEGHA 9TH 'A' CROSS, SBI COLONY
MOHAN J.P.NAGAR, 1ST PHASE
Location: BENGALURU-560 078
HIGH COURT ...APPELLANTS
OF (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA S.V., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SRI. NAGARAJA.G
S/O LATE GALI RAMASWAMY
AGED 52 YEARS
2. SRI G.SUBRAMANI
S/O LATE GALI RAMASWAMY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30981
MFA No. 4656 of 2024
2A. SMT. DHANALAXMI
W/O LATE G.SUBRAMANI
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS
2B. SMT.KAVYA
D/O LATE G.SUBRAMANI
AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS
2C. SRI.MAHENDRA
S/O LATE G.SUBRAMANI
AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD,
TALAGHATTA PURA
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 062
3. SRI. BHAGAVANTA RAJU
S/O LATE HANUMANTHE GOWDA
AGE ABOUT 71 YEARS
4. SRI. MARE GOWDA
S/O BHAGAVANTH RAJU
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS
5. SRI.ANANTHA RAMU
S/O BHAGAVANTH RAJU
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS
6. SRI.SRINIVASA MURTHY
S/O BHAGAVANTH RAJU
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS
7. SRI. HANUMANTE GOWDA
S/O BHAGAVANTH RAJU
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD,
TALAGHATTA PURA
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 062
8. SRI. MANJU RAMA SWAMY
S/O LATE HANUMANTHE GOWDA
AGED 53 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30981
MFA No. 4656 of 2024
9. SRI. AMARITH RAJ
S/O MANJU RAMA SWAMY
AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS
10. SRI.HARISH
S/O MANJU RAMA SWAMY
AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD,
TALAGHATTA PURA
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 062
11. SMT Y.YASHODA
W/O B.ANANTHARAMA
AGED 39 YEARS
12. CHI R.RISHIRAJ
S/O B.ANANTHARAMA
SINCE MINOR REP BY
HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SRI B.ANANTHARAMA
13. SMT.SUMITHRA
W/O B. MAREGOWDA
@ CHANNA MAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
14. KUM. TEJASWINI
D/O B.MAREGOWDA @
CHANNA MAREGOWDA
SINCE MINOR REP BY HIS FATHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SRI B.MAREGOWDA @ CHANNA MAREGOWDA
15. CHI. PREETHAM
S/O B.MAREGOWDA @
CHANNA MAREGOWDA
SINCE MINOR REP BY HIS FATHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN
SRI B.MAREGOWDA @ CHANNA MAREGOWDA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD,
TALAGHATTA PURA VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30981
MFA No. 4656 of 2024
16. SMT.ROOPAVATHI
D/O H.MANJU RAMASWAMY
W/O PRAKASH
AGED 38 YEARS
R/AT KAGALIPURA VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
17. SMT.MENAKA
D/O H.MANJU RAMASWAMY
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O VEERACHANNAPPA
R/AT SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 082
18. SRI. PRAKASH SUBRAY NAIK
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O SUBRAY GANAPTHI NAIK
19. SMT.SHWETHA PRAKASH NAIK
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O PRAKASH SUBRAY NAIK
R/AT NO 88, DESAI GARDEN
VASANTHPURA MAIN ROAD,
KONANAKUNTE CROSS - 560 062
20. PRAMOD RAMDAS KAMAT
S/O LATE RAMDAS M. KAMAT
AGED 71 YEARS
R/A NO 85, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
1ST CROSS, OKALIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 002
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED: 20.04.2024 PASSED ON IA IN O.S.NO.324/2008 ON
THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ALLOWING IA FILED U/O.39 RULE 1
AND 2 OF CPC FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF NO.1 AND PLAINTIFF
NO.2(a) AGAINST DEFENDANT NO.14.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30981
MFA No. 4656 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed
in I.A. filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.324/2008 dated 20.04.2024 passed by
the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court had granted
injunction restraining defendant No.14 or anybody claiming
under them from putting up any construction in any portion of
item No.2 of the suit schedule property till pending disposal of
the suit. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No.14 is before this
Court.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein
had filed a suit for partition. The appellant herein is arrayed as
defendant No.14, who is the purchaser of the joint family
property and he was set ex-parte on 16.12.2018 and later on
20.04.2024, the present injunction order is granted in favour of
the plaintiff.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant
No.14 submits that he has raised a huge structure and at this
NC: 2024:KHC:30981
point of time, the injunction order would cause a lot of hardship
to defendant No. 14 and as such, the same has to be set aside.
4. It is also an undisputed fact that he has not
approached the Court to set aside the order placing him
ex-parte and without questioning the same, he has come
before this Court seeking to set aside the injunction order.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant
cannot maintain this appeal, first he has to approach the trial
Court and file an application to set aside that order where he
has been placed as ex-parte.
6. In that view of the matter, as this Court is not
interfering with the order that is passed by the trial Court, this
Court is not proposing to issue notice to the respondents.
However, the appellant is at liberty to file an appropriate
application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC before the trial Court
and the trial Court shall decide the said application within 15
days from the date of filing. Thereafter, the trial Court can deal
with the application filed by defendant seeking to vacate the
NC: 2024:KHC:30981
interim injunction granted and the same shall be disposed off
within 15 days from there on.
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.
ii. I.A.No.1/2024 is dismissed as not pressed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
