Karnataka High Court
Mr. Rangaswamy vs Mr. Ramesh on 21 May, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17514-DB
MFA No. 2817 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2817 OF 2024 (AA)
BETWEEN:
MR. RANGASWAMY
S/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A NO.38, BALAJI LAYOUT
NEAR SIR M VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 060 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.HARSHA D JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR.RAMESH
S/O NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A NO.91, 2ND WARD
Digitally signed by VADERAHALLI
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA NEAR ANANDA DHABA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DIST.-562 159.
KARNATAKA
2. SMT PRATHIBA
W/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/A NO.91, 2ND WARD
VADERAHALLI
NEAR ANANDA DHABA
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DIST.-562 159.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.H.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17514-DB
MFA No. 2817 of 2024
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(b) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 04.03.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.1 AND 2 IN A.A.NO.76/2023
ON THE FILE OF THE 17TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-16) DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1
FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION
151 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39
RULE 4 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the applicant in A.A No.76/2023 on the file of
the 17th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is directed
against the impugned order whereby the application I.A.No.2 filed
by the appellant which allowed I.A.No.2 filed by the respondent
under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC seeking vacation of an ad interim
exparte order of temporary injunction passed against the
respondent.
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
appellant instituted the aforesaid proceedings under Order 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking emergent / urgent
interim relief against the respondent. Along with the application,
the appellant filed an interlocutory application under Order 39 Rule
1 & 2, CPC seeking to restrain the respondents from alienating,
encumbering or creating any third party rights over the schedule
NC: 2024:KHC:17514-DB
property. In the first instance, the Trial Court passed an ad interim
exparte order of temporary injunction which was sought to be
vacated by the respondent by filing I.A.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4,
CPC. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to pass
the common impugned order rejecting I.A.No.1 filed by the
appellant and allowing I.A.No.2 filed by the respondent, aggrieved
by which the appellant is before this Court by way of the present
appeal.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
though several contentions have been urged by both sides in
support of their respective claims, it is relevant to state that the
main prayer sought for by the appellant - applicant in
A.A.No.76/2023 i.e. under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act is for urgent / emergent interim measures / reliefs
which are opposed by the respondent. Under these
circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits /
demerits on the rival contentions, and in the light of the timelines
prescribed under the said Act, we deem it just and appropriate to
dispose of this appeal directing the Trial Court to dispose of
A.A.No.76/2023 on merits within a period of one month from the
NC: 2024:KHC:17514-DB
next date of hearing of the case which is posted before the Trial
Court on 24.06.2024.
4. It is further directed that till disposal of the application by
the Trial Court as stated supra, both parties shall not alienate,
encumber or create any third party rights over the schedule
property.
5. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept
open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DHA
