Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagaraju S vs Sri Ashwathaiah on 26 July, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29427
MFA No. 4780 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4780 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGARAJU S,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.6,
APPLE CORNER, 15TH MAIN ROAD,
4TH BLOCK, NANDHINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI ASHWATHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA @ VENKATAIAH,
2. SMT. KUSUMA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
W/O ASHWATHAIHA,
3. SRI LATHESH,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
GEETHAKUMARI
PARLATTAYA S S/O ASHWATHAIHA,
Location: High 4. SMT. LATHA,
Court of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D/O ASHWATHAIHA,
5. SMT. RAMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
C/O LATE G.V. REVANNA,
6. SRI SUDHAKARA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE G.V. REVANNA,
7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
D/O LATE G.V. REVANNA,
8. SMT. VINUTHA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
D/O VARADHA REDDY,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29427
MFA No. 4780 of 2024
9. SRI VIJAY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O VARADHA REDDY,
10. SMT. RADHA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
D/O LATE G.V. REVANNA,
11. MISS HARSHITHA RANI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
D/O ASHWATHAPPA,
12. SRI THIMMANNA @ THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
13. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
C/O THIMMANNA,
14. SMT. PREMA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
C/O THIMMANNA,
15. SRI. NARENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O RAJASHEKAR,
16. SRI. NITHESH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O RAJASHEKAR,
17. SMT. MANJULA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
D/O THIMMANNA,
18. MISS YAMUNA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
D/O BASAVARAJU,
19. MASTER PAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
S/O BASAVARAJU,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED,
BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SMT. MANJULA,
20. SRI NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O THIMMANNA,
21. MISS INDHU SHREE,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
D/O NANJUNDAPPA,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29427
MFA No. 4780 of 2024
22. MASTER MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
S/O SRI NANJUNDAPPA,
RESPONDENTS NO.21 AND 22 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SRI NANJUNDAPPA.
23. SMT. SUSHILA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O THIMMANNA,
24. MASTER SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
S/O KUMARASWAMY,
25. MISS HARSHITHA,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
D/O KUMARASWAMY,
RESPONDENTS NO.24 AND 25 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SMT. SUSHILA.
26. SMT. KEMPAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAMANNA,
27. SMT. MANGALA GOWRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAMANNA,
28. SRI RANJITHA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
D/O MUNEGOWDA,
29. MISS NAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
D/O MUNEGOWDA,
30. MISS SONI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
D/O MUNEGOWDA,
31. SMT. ROOPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAMANNA,
32. MISS BHAGYA LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
D/O LOKESH,
33. MISS DIVYA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
D/O LOKESH,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29427
MFA No. 4780 of 2024
34. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAVI KUMAR,
35. SMT. SANJAY,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAVI KUMAR,
36. SRI PUNITH,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAVI KUMAR.
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 36 ARE
RESIDING AT GULURU VILLAGE,
GULURU HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 118.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.512/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, SSUING NOTICE ON I.A.NO.1 AND
SUIT SUMMONS TO DEFENDANTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appeal is filed against order dated 18.07.2024
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru
in O.S.no.512/2024 on I.A.no.1 filed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for
short).
NC: 2024:KHC:29427
2. Sri K. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for
appellant submitted that appellant was plaintiff in suit filed
for specific performance of agreement of sale. In said suit,
I.A.no.1 was filed for temporary injunction to restrain
defendants from alienating or creating any third party
rights over suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. It was
submitted, though in plaint as well as affidavit filed in
support of application, plaintiff had made assertions to
substantiate prima-facie case and had also produced
relevant records, trial Court refused to grant ad-interim
injunction and ordered issuance of notice returnable by
03.08.2024. It was submitted, since there was imminent
threat of alienation by respondents even after
plaintiff/appellant had made substantial payments and was
ready and willing to pay balance amount, refusal to grant
ad-interim injunction was contrary to law and called for
interference.
3. Perusal of order impugned reveals that upon
considering material on record, learned trial Judge felt fit
NC: 2024:KHC:29427
to hear respondents/defendants before considering
application. Said order would not admit of appeal.
4. Under these circumstances, it would be
appropriate to dispose of appeal by directing trial Court to
dispose of application as expeditiously as possible within a
period of 30 days and by permitting appellant/plaintiff to
take out hand summons to respondents/defendants. For
said purposes, appellant is at liberty to seek for
pre-ponement of date of hearing of suit also.
Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
KA
