Karnataka High Court
Smt Valliamma D vs Sri L Krishnan on 2 July, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24762
MFA No. 4292 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4292 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VALLIAMMA D,
W/O. S. JAYARAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
RESIDING AT NO.33,
4TH MAIN ROAD, GROUND FLOOR,
7TH BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
1. SRI. L. KRISHNAN,
S/O LATE LINGAM NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
GEETHAKUMARI
PARLATTAYA S
2. SMT. R.K. NANDHINI,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka W/O L. KRISHNAN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
BOTH ARE NO. 66, 12TH CROSS,
GANAGAMMA LAYOUT, ASHOK NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. BRINDA A.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24762
MFA No. 4292 of 2023
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO.
1 IN O.S.NO. 2255/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-15), REJECTING THE I.A.NO. 1 FILED UNDER ORDER
XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though matter is called out, there is no representation on
behalf of appellant.
2. Challenging order dated 18.04.2023 passed by VIII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15), Bengaluru,
in O.S.no.2255/2023 on IA.1 filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1
and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short, 'CPC') this appeal is filed.
3. On perusal of memorandum of appeal, it is seen
that appeal is by plaintiff in suit filed for permanent injunction.
In said suit, an interim application was filed for temporary
injunction, restraining defendants from putting up further
construction in suit schedule property, during pendency of suit,
NC: 2024:KHC:24762
trial Court rejected said application, aggrieved by which present
appeal is filed.
4. It is seen though appeal is filed on 23.06.2023,
there was no interim order until 25.07.2023. On said date,
interim order, directing both parties to maintain status-quo was
granted till next date of hearing. Thereafter, though matter was
listed on 07.08.2023, 21.06.2024 and 01.07.2024, interim
order was not extended.
5. On 01.07.2024, learned counsel for
respondent/defendant has filed a memo stating that during
pendency of appeal, defendants had completed construction
and were residing therein. Copies of photographs appended to
memo would corroborate submission. Copy of memo was
received by learned counsel for appellant at his instance,
matter is re-listed today.
6. But, there is no representation. Since
respondents/defendants have completed construction, relief
sought for by plaintiff in application has been rendered
infructuous.
NC: 2024:KHC:24762
7. Taking note of same, appeal is disposed of as
having become infructuous, with observation that construction
put up would be subject to final outcome of suit and defendants
would not be entitled to any share of equity in case plaintiff
succeeds.
It is also clarified that observations made by trial Court in
interim order at interim stage, it had to pass judgment
evidence on record.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PK
CT: BHK
