St Marys Kalamane And Arekal Estates vs Peter J R Prabhu
2025 Latest Caselaw 1090 Kant

Karnataka High Court

St Marys Kalamane And Arekal Estates vs Peter J R Prabhu on 15 July, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:25993
                                                           MFA No. 4610 of 2024


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4610 OF 2024 (CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    ST MARY'S KALAMANE AND AREKAL ESTATES
                         NIDUVALE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK,
                         CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,
                         A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
                         HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO. 11,
                         HOYES ROAD, BENGALURU 560 025
                         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
                         SRI. AVINASH PRABHU
                         S/O PETER J.R PRABHU.,
                         R/O. ST. MARY KALMANE ESTATE NIDUVALE VILLAGE
                         AND POST MUDIGERE TALUK
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. J P DARSHAN.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed   AND:
by ANJALI M
Location: High
Court of           1.    PETER J R PRABHU
Karnataka
                         AGED MAJOR,
                         S/O LATE MR. H.P. RODRIGUES,
                         NO.80, III CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD,
                         BENGALURU-560001.,

                   2.    STATE BANK OF INDIA,
                         REPRESENTED BY ITS
                         ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
                         COMMERCIAL BRANCH, VELLORE DISTRICT.
                         WALAJPET-632513.
                                  -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:25993
                                               MFA No. 4610 of 2024


HC-KAR




3.   THE RECOVERY OFFICER,
     DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I,
     6TH FLOOR, DEWA TOWERS, 770-A,
     ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600002
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS



      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) READ
WITH SECTION 151 OF CPCP TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
05.04.2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MUDIGERE, ON I.A.NO.1 UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A, PASSED IN O.S.NO.10/2021,
CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39
RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.10/2021 BEFORE THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE AND OTHERS.

      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR


                           ORAL JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo

dated 10.07.2025 seeking withdrawal of the appeal, which

reads as under:

"The undersigned counsel for the Appellant herewith submits that the Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated

NC: 2025:KHC:25993

HC-KAR

05.04.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the Appellant seeking injunctive reliefs against Respondent No.3 in O.S.10/2021. It is further submitted that since on the same day the trial court in O.S.No.10/2021 passed an order on I.A.No.4 and directed the applicant to delete the Respondent No.3 from the suit. Challenging this order, the Appellant had preferred a writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.18774/2024. In the said petition, this Hon'ble Court has observed that Recovery Officer cannot be made a party, and injunctive reliefs could not be sought so as against the Respondent No.3 as there is a statutory bar to the same and has dismissed the Petition.

It is submitted that in the above appeal too, the Appellant has challenged order on I.A. under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 seeking restraint against Respondent No.3. In the light of the above decision of this Hon'ble Court, the above appeal becomes infructuous and hence this memo of withdrawal may be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity."

NC: 2025:KHC:25993

HC-KAR

2. The said memo is placed on record.

3. In view of the memo, the appeal is dismissed

as withdrawn.

Sd/-

(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

CH