Karnataka High Court
Sri M Ranganath vs Sri N Jayaram on 28 June, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24143
MFA No. 816 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 816 OF 2019 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M RANGANATH
S/O LATE T MUNIPAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.114
BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI N JAYARAM
S/O LATE NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
NO.320/E, 9TH A MAIN
Digitally signed by 40TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
GEETHAKUMARI
PARLATTAYA S JAYANAGAR
Location: High BENGALURU-560 041.
Court of Karnataka
2. SRI RAMDAS
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O MUNEERAPPA
3. SRI MUNIYELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA
DEFENDANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24143
MFA No. 816 of 2019
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 076.
4. SMT S RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE SHAMANNA
W/O L GOPINATH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
5. SRI SRINIVAS
S/O LATE SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
6. SRI S RAMESH
S/O LATE SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
7. SMT RADHA
D/O LATE SHAMANNA
W/O RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
8. SMT MANJULA
D/O LATE SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
9. SMT PRAMILA
D/O LATE SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
10. SRI VENKATESH B S
S/O LATE SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
11. SMT HARILAXMI
D/O LATE SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
12. SMT RAMAKKA
D/O LATE MUNEERAPPA
W/O GUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24143
MFA No. 816 of 2019
13. SMT MUNIRATHNA
D/O MUNIYELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
14. SRI MUNIRAJU
S/O MUNIYELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
15. SRI M SHANKAR
S/O MUNIYELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
16. SRI NAGARAJU
S/O K H MUNIYAPPA AND
LATE YELLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
17. SRI KRISHNA
S/O K H MUNIYAPPA AND
LATE YELLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
18. SMT PADMA @ PADMAVATHI
D/O K H MUNIYAPPA AND
LATE YELLAMMA
W/O RAMDAS
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
19. SMT LAKSHMI
W/O LATE VENKATESH
D/O K H MUNIYAPPA AND
LATE YELLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
20. MASTER JEEVAN
S/O LATE VENKATESH AND LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS
BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT LAKSHMI
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:24143
MFA No. 816 of 2019
21. SMT SHAKUNTHALA
D/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
22. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
23. KUMARI LEELAVATHI
D/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT BILEKAHALLI
24. SMT MUNAMMA @ MUNIYAMMA @
MUNIAMMAL
D/O LATE MUNEERAPPA
W/O KAMALA KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
25. SMT SAROJAMMA
D/O LATE MUNEERAPPA
W/O YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
26. BABY SUPRIYA
D/O RAMDAS AND PADMA @ PADMAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
BEING MINOR REP. BY HER
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT PADMA @ PADMAVATHI
27. BABY MANDARA
D/O RAMDAS
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
BEING MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT PADMA @ PADMAVATHI
28. SMT M MANJULA
D/O LATE MUNEERAPPA
W/O GANGADHAR
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:24143
MFA No. 816 of 2019
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT BILEKAHALLI
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 076
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH A S FOR C/R1.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2018, PASSED ON IA.NOS.1 AND 3,
IN O.S. NO.25721/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL,
(CCH-20), BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA NOS.1 AND 3
RILED U/O.39 RULES-1 & 2 R/W. SEC.151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against order dated 18.12.2018
passed by XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at
Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.25721/2018 on I.A.Nos.1 and
3 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
2. It was submitted that suit was filed by plaintiff for
partition, wherein I.A.nos.1 and 3 were filed for temporary
injunction restraining defendants from alienating suit schedule
property and from changing nature of suit schedule property
during pendency of suit. Trial Court had initially granted
NC: 2024:KHC:24143
ex-parte ad-interm injunction. On appearance of defendants,
they were heard and rejected by impugned order.
3. It was submitted that present appeal was filed on
23.01.2019 and is pending without any interim order. In
meanwhile, suit had progressed to stage of trial. Since, suit
was of year 2018 and more than five years old,
Sri H.R.Anantha Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for appellant
submitted on instructions that appellant would be satisfied, if
appeal is disposed of by directing trial Court to expedite
disposal of suit.
4. Sri Mahesh A.S., learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 would submit that respondent No.1 would co-
operate for early disposal of suit.
5. In view of submission, testing legality of order
would not be necessary. Appeal is disposed of directing trial
Court to dispose of suit as far as possible within a period of six
months by setting specific timeline for each stage of suit and by
avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
NC: 2024:KHC:24143
6. It is clarified that observations/ findings of Trial
Court in impugned order would not bind it at time of disposal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB/-
