Karnataka High Court
Lakshmamma vs Geddit Convenience Private Limited on 7 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19922
WP No. 5557 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.5557 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O. SRI MUNIANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.145
NEAR GANGAMMA TEMPLE KARIYANAPALYA
NEAR HENNUR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 084.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRUTI C. CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GEDDIT CONVENIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
Digitally
BEING A PRIVATE LIMITED
signed by V
MANJUSHA COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
BAI HAVING ITS REGISTERED
Location: OFFICE AT UNIT 803
High Court LODHA SUPREMUS, SAKI VIHAR ROAD
of Karnataka OPPOSITE MTNL OFFICE
POWAI, MUMBAI-400 072
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. MANOJ SETHIA
DIRECTOR
GEDDIT CONVENIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
UNIT 803, LODHA SUPREMUS
SAKI VIHAR ROAD
OPPOSITE MTNL OFFICE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19922
WP No. 5557 of 2024
POWAI,
MUMBAI - 400 072.
3. PRIYANKA MODI
DIRECTOR
GEDDIT CONVENIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
UNIT 803, LODHA SUPREMUS
SAKI VIHAR ROAD
OPPOSITE MTNL OFFICE
POWAI,
MUMBAI-400 072.
4. KIRANKART TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
BEING A PRIVATE LIMITED
COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
4TH FLOOR, WEWORK
CHROMIUM POWAI
JOGESHWARI VIKHROLI LINK
ROAD, RAJE SAMBHAJI NAGAR
MAROL, ANDHERI EAST
MUMBAI-400 076.
5. NIKHIL KUMAR MITTAL
DIRECTOR
KIRANKART TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, WEWORK
CHROMIUM POWAI
JOGESHWARI VIKHROLI LINK ROAD
RAJE SAMBHAJI NAGAR
MAROL
ANDHERI EAST,
MUMBAI-400 076.
6. KAIVALYA VOHRA
DIRECTOR
KIRANKART TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, WEWORK
CHROMIUM POWAI
JOGESHWARI VIKHROLI LINK
ROAD, RAJE SAMBHAJI NAGAR
MAROL, ANDHERI EAST
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:19922
WP No. 5557 of 2024
MUMBAI-400 076.
7. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
14, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
8. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
(PERIPHERAL RING ROAD)
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
14, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE-560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ADITYA D. AND
SMT. POONAM S. PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R.1 TO R.6;
SRI N.R. GIRISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R.8;
R.7: SERVED.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL, AT BANGALORE
IN O.S.NO.305/2024 ON I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX
RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC., PRODUCED
HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-J AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW I.A.
FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH
SECTION 151 CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN
O.S.NO.305/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL, AT BANGALORE,
PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-G, ETC.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:19922
WP No. 5557 of 2024
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. O.S.No.305/2024 is filed by the petitioner against the
respondents with the following prayers in respect of the
suit schedule properties:-
"WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass in favor of the
Plaintiff judgment and decree of-
(i) PERMANENT INJUNCTION restraining
Defendant Nos.1 to 6 from carrying on
business in suit Schedule 'B' Property,
situated in suit Schedule 'A' Property;
(ii) Award the Plaintiff the costs of the suit,
(iii) Grant other reliefs/ pass such other orders
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interests of justice and equity."
2. Alongwith it, the petitioner has also filed an
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with
NC: 2024:KHC:19922
Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the
following prayer:-
"That, for the reasons sworn to in the
accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to pass an ex-parte ad-interim order of
temporary injunction restraining Defendant
Nos.1 and 6 and/or their agents,
representatives and/or persons claiming
through/under them from carrying out business
in suit Schedule 'B' Property situated in suit
Schedule 'A' Property, pending the disposal of
the above suit, in the interest of justice and
equity."
3. As the trial Court deemed it fit to pass an order on
the interlocutory application after hearing the parties
concerned, notice was issued to the defendants therein
(respondents herein) on the ground that it was not a fit
case for grant of exparte interim order. Against the said
order, the plaintiff therein has preferred this writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:19922
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the suit schedule
properties are the joint family properties and that her
brother has illegally leased it in favour of respondent
Nos.1 to 6 herein. It is further submitted that petitioner
has filed O.S.No.523/2016 for partition and separate
possession of the suit schedule properties.
5. Admittedly, there is no privity of contract between
the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 6. If it is the case
of the petitioner that lease has been executed in violation
of her right, she ought to have made her brother also a
party to the proceedings before the trial Court. She has
not done so. It is always open for the petitioner to make
necessary amendment to the plaint and implead her
brother a party to the proceedings. As respondents have
been leased the properties by her brother and they have
been paying rents to the lessor, the trial Court deemed it
fit that it is a case to hear the parties before passing any
order on the interlocutory application.
NC: 2024:KHC:19922
6. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any
error in the order passed by the trial Court.
7. Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
However, dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the
way of the petitioner herein from carrying out necessary
amendment to the plaint, if she so desires and make
appropriate prayers against the respondents.
8. It is also hereby clarified that the trial Court will hear
the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders on the
interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1
and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which is pending
before it without being influenced by any of the
observations made herein above.
9. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
VMB
