Karnataka High Court
Hanumanthappa vs Sri K T Shantha Kumar on 21 May, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17518
MFA No. 2986 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2986 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
HANUMANTHAPPA,
S/O CHIKKA KEMPAIAH,
SY. NO.83 AND 84,
NEXT TO HOUSE NO.246,
WARD NO.160,
DWARAKANAGARA PURVA,
9TH MAIN ROAD,
CHANNASANDRA,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AMAR BABU M., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SUMA B N
Location: High
Court of 1. SRI K.T. SHANTHA KUMAR,
Karnataka
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/A NO.54,
SADASHIVANAGARA,
LOWER ORCHARDS,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
2. SMT. PUTTAMMA,
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17518
MFA No. 2986 of 2024
3. SRI LOKESH,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
4. SRI SURESH
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE
R/A SY. NO. 83 AND 84,
NEXT TO HOUSE NO.246,
WARD NO.160,
DWARAKANAGARA PURVA,
9TH MAIN ROAD,
CHANNASANDRA,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 098.
5. SRI RAJU A.L.,
S/O SRI C. LAKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/A NO.245, 4TH MAIN,
2ND CROSS,
GIRI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAYA JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE;
SRI. D.P. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
09.05.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.2 IN O.S. NO.3272/2024 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND
VACATION CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17518
MFA No. 2986 of 2024
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The only grievance of the petitioner/defendant No.1
is that though he had filed written statement to the plaint
and objections to the interim application, the trial Court
while passing the impugned order on an application filed
by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC
has not adverted to the averments and contentions raised
by petitioner/defendant No.1. Thus, learned counsel for
the petitioner/defendant No.1 vehemently submitted that
the order is one which is arbitrary and perverse warranting
interference at the hands of this Court.
2. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the plaintiff submits that the matter is now set down for
hearing on 04.06.2024 before the trial Court. He
emphasizes that the interim order is granted only till the
next date of hearing enabling the other defendants to file
their statement of objections. That as such no prejudice
would be caused to the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:17518
3. Heard, perused the records.
4. There is no dispute to the fact that the
petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed written statement and
statement of objections to the application filed by the
plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The
records reveal that the trial Court has neither adverted to
the contents of the written statement nor to the contents
of the statement of objections filed by defendant No.1
while passing the interim order.
5. Be that as it is. Since it is submitted that the
impugned order restraining the defendants from alienating
the suit schedule property is limited only till next date of
hearing and since the matter is set down before the trial
Court for hearing on 04.06.2024, the trial Court is directed
to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner herein
and after hearing the parties, pass appropriate orders on
the applications filed by the parties.
NC: 2024:KHC:17518
6. Till such time, in the peculiar facts situation of
the matter, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court
is modified directing the parties to maintain status-quo
with regard to the nature and title of the suit schedule
property till 04.06.2024 and the Trial Court shall dispose
of the application filed by the plaintiff on its merits after
hearing all the parties as directed hereinabove.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
