Karnataka High Court
B Nandini vs Bhushanam on 26 September, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT op' KARNATAKA AT B,A1'$§«3AL::RL'g T'
DATES THIS THE 25TH my off"éE':§f1a3M.BE;R--T2:s<23%iVi 'V"_
BEFORE V' A T V %
THE §~ION'BLE MR..I:;3@i+::'..E mNg:¢::.a S
M.F.A.No.6337/20{)5"'(3{W n;i'.'F.}i.;':J{§1'e4;39/tgdosxépc}
IN MFA No.6337/2005 " A'
BE}! WEEN:
1. Smt. E,.'1*é.:1adini:;V
Wjo. M.,.G£)p;al " _
Ag:;o1~--9bcmt
No.6, Ca1*.L;3t:jeeVt, 3§°H'Z7m3s,- Ulsoor
Bégngalore-56.V:O " h
2. S11' B§{}u1:{ashekar "
33,10. La£r:._IVi;Baian'-
.. 4}-'Aged about' 41 years
" R/222: I'*z"Q.52/ I, fzfid Cross,
. A * .. _ 'x':=;I1a:m;iaKoi2 Street, Ulsoor
" _ Ba::ga;:sn=:._--5.s0 003.
3. ' B.K?.imar'T
S/G. Late M.Bal.-31:1
about 44 years
n Rfa: No.9/3, 4135 Cross
_ "Gupta Layout, Ulsoor
" "Ba.nga1ore--56O O08. ...Appc11ants
VT " Sriyuths B.T.Ir1du Shekar 85 'T.R.Harish Kumar, Advcxzates}
1. Miss Bhushanam
D/0. Late Mlmiswamy
Agra} about 78 years
106/54, 11*?" Cross, 11"'-1 Main» ~
Maiieswaram
Ba11ga}13rc:--56O 003.
2. M,Cu::api
S/0. Late Madhavazn.
Aged about 50 years V _
R/a: No.6, III Cms?s;;Jisoor
BaJ:1ga.1orc~8. ~ _ 1
3. V.c3:1ai1dr§sE_3_ek:;3'r. '
SlQ,__La'{e: P.'V::nkat£t3_ Va:33.y__
A:gVV€:dTé1§}s:s17:t _
R',--!__a: ._N0,2SV,,'*B_»' croSs,"Na11ja Raddy Colony
HA3, Post -- "
Bangalozv-1'7. . '
4. ';VLV.ara}aVk's!1;1VIii'
. ' W! .0, 'J. Chaflémshekar
« , ' Agéd about 43 years
" 'V R;'25--,. 'B' cross, Nanja Raddy Colony
' . 1?'. ...Respondents
(By M";':s. Covenant Law Firm and S.J.Aristotie, Advncates for R1;
--« H.M.Di__u'akar, Advocate far" R2; M/s. ACC Associates, Advocates
' jfszaif" ir¥31_n8s F24}
"MFA Nc>.6337/2005 is flied under Order 43 R1116 Hr} rfw
M A 204 CE"-'C, against the order dated I1.()'?.2005, passed on EA No.5
'i'I1"C}.S.ND.15179f20C33, on the file of XIII Add}. City Civil Judge,
Mayo Hail Unit, Bangalore, akiawing {A No.5 filed undér Order 39
" RQA CPC for attachment of properties am} to ward compensatfion
for breach of order cf ad interim temporary injunction dated
£?.09.2003 85 etc.
IN M.F'.A.N0.6439I 2005
BETWEEN :
1.
(By M] :5. ACC
B. R . Kantha1'aju,'--Adrzocat:e§)M
AND:
1.
V. Chandrashekar
S] 0. Late Rvenkataswanly
Aged about 45 years
R/a; No.25, 'B' Cross,
Nafija Raddy Colony, HA
Bangalore» 1?.
L Post .__ A.
V.Va1a1akshmi
W] 0. V.Chandrash{:ikar
Aged about 43 '_
R/a: 110.25, 'B' Cross ._
Nanja Raddy Colony,}éIA.L 1 _os:t
Baflgalorc:-41:7.v.. " 9 ' '~ A
.-- Chandrashckar :31.
Miss' B}:1ush a';ag m -
DI Muniswamy _
" .Aged"ahc.ut'v~--'7n8 years """ "
. I06[T:£}, V], 1% Cross, 11*?' Main, Mailfiswaram
___ l~341Jgalg'r§_%56Q
S'z3a,f."%
4' _Aged aitxjut 46 years
P'€o.L§, S1:rf:6'£, 3" Cross, Ulsoor
BaI1g:_alore--56{) 008.
__ I~3.Gm1ashekar
....s;/o. Late M.Ba1an
u Ag:-xi about 41 years
Rla: No.52/1, 295* Cross,
Yellamma Koil Street, Uisoor
Bangalore-560 008.
4. B.Kuma:r
S10. Lats Mfialan
Aged about 44 years _
R/as 340.913, 4"' Cross, Gupta Layout uzsoa; L"
BaI1gaiore--56{) G08. a " = ~ {Ta
5. M.Gopi
S/0. Late Madhavan
Agad about 50 years
R/a: No.6, HI Cross,
Car Street, Ulsoor _ "
Ba11ga}0rt:--8. _ - Respondents
{By Sri S.J.A:rist0t1e, Adv{$(:a§ej "
MFA No.64:3'9/ 2005 "is7jr;1§a..'j';1;1a¢r,f:%;éc:ion 104 r/W
Order 43"R'u1ej'::(r) "ag}g-ans: 5:-der dated 1 1.07.2005,
passed 1(3)} IA C»:S:}§§';---]6179/ 2003, on the file of XIII
Add]. any Civfl J:«%dg:§"eg£"'<2»{£a3}§ Haii Unit, Bangalore, CCH
No.22'. EA. 'NcA}';'5 '1§.1ed by rcspoadent. No.1 herein
..Vu:1d;:W£'«:.Q:§ier%_ 39 "§+:u1e___r>A (2130, tc; attach the properties of
résp§11d_€:1its.Q,'«-to 5 herein and also to awartl compensation
Ifof order of ad interim mmperaty injunction
da'ts:§;'%17.V_e9;;*{3G'3 3:. etc,
'kink
, " rm twa appeals Coming on for final hearing this
(1'ajr,'~t}:c Court cialivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
These two agpeais are filed against the oxtler passed by the learned trial Judge on IA No.V in O.S.No. 16;.7§'« 3
013. the file of xm Add}. City Civil Judge at ..a.......g;;....m;...«., Bangaiore.
2. In these appeals, 1'.)811.fi€_'S array before the trial Court. 0 V. V V. S
3. The suit was o1"Vv'M1:>et1nanent i11ju11ct:i<on. _i23st:ituted. an application for grant of A'tempor¢::jr" was filed. The tria} Court granted .311 otéet of injunction on 17.09.2003. On iiéefexatééiiitsv i to H1 appeared through their Atiifiefendant filed objections to IA No.1 on ad interim order of temporary izljunotion V0"-,.,_0'oon.tinueet'1ti]1 07.02.2004. 011 07.02.2004, trial Clotzrt: heand » By order dated 09.02.2004, order of temporary _._.j'V0"'i13j§§1nctio11 was extended till the next ciate of hearing. 03 uu:=22.0'?.2{}04, neither Counsel for plainfiff nor ylaintifi was present. No application was filed for extension of interim 2 orcier. At the first instance, the iearned trial Judge has a note in the order sheet that IA filed for extensiQfi.:«ef . allowed. Later, realising the mistake s11eIr1'a:1~-eippiieafio1:_ u " " 2 had not been flied, the order was ceSe:"e'a;ae;_:« posted to 13.08.2004.
and 13.08.2004, defendantsl to sale deed in favour of or1e<_ f'5f wife Gfslaxaiakshmi. The under Order 39 Rule 2A defendants for disobedience. o§.e i;e11;po1'ary ixqjunction granted on
17.O9.20O3.V_2--ind to time.
5-1,» The" Judge heard the gaxfies. The _ V. §;i&§V'\'J1i€i§e held even if an order of tefilpmalfi' ;3u_Vot:'eXtene¥eé, it wiii not lapse automatieaiiy on its own. T§,1e_ Said order does net cease to operate on its own by eflluficef time. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was of 'fj}€' Qxeieion "unless ex pa1"s;:e order of temporary injunction is V. firaciated by a censidered onier, it was in force though it was ., got extended on the relevant date. N. C>Q'/x____fivw"C,L I
5. The leamed trial Judge has relied on a dedsion reported in AIR 2001 ALLAHABAD 155 (in the 3 Butt Sharma and etc. Vs. Regional J0irzt""'Direci:r§vi* Education, Agra and etc), wherein has dealt with Rule 14 of the Anahafiad
6. The learncjsd tria} has n0t _ ' t;hc provisions of Order 39 RMQBA rea;E1é"fl1'1i;r.:-
"3A. Court £6 $¢f:_i's37'a'¢'x--s:é*:::of_:§ii%Q2§.§§ation for injunctigm iiiithiiu f_t1nrty"~va1ays -- Wham an ifij;;nctiei:%'%%%;:a§"~ ..g:finted without giving noticx: tx_3 thc the Court shall make a11V 'cn.d'c,aVo1ir" Vto finally dispose of the '~§'::1p}:):iica;tioi1AAi;vifj1i11.» thirty days from the date on wliintih injunction was gmnted; and when: it an ax parts: order of temporary injunction. Afier ' u is to do, it shall record its reasons for V A 'such ::;1.__{he case on hand, the ieamed trial Judge had
4._.....--* ' apiofiarancc of defendants, intmrim order was extended from to time. The learned trial Judge after appcaranoc of defendants shouid have heart! the objections of defendants W K I'M and should have endeavouzed to finally dispoiee' ' application. The ieamed tnlal Judge on " 'A V. application and objections on merife, f ex parte order absolute or vacated tviheex ae warranted by the situation. touthi S,'- trial Judge has extended on the applications made by Judge has not held enqui;y"§eVZ' iatega that there was willful disobeeiie_@IieeV. by defendants I to H1. The "also yroceeded against one V.Chandre§h_ek:-1: éxéeife G.Vara1akshmi, who axe state¢i}l 1:.oe'.be pineiiasefs of suit schedule property fiom V. under a registered sale deed.
H 2 'ES'-tleediess to state, consequences of disobedience
-V or order is primitive in natuie. The party H ' ofbzeach of injunction could be impxtisoned. The trial Judge should have held an enqugiry before VT V' paesing the impugned order. The learned tria} Judge has " committed an error in placing reliance on a decision reportefi
-
in AIR 2001 ALLAHABAD 155 (in the case of Sharma, and etc Vs. Regional Joint Director of . Agra and etc), wherein the High of 'hag: .4 '* dealt with the provisions of Rule 1%; of A31éhah;§ciV;H§ 1:, 7 Court Rules. Therefore, i théi ;§:{iI1sid€:if§{i_A impugned order cannot be susta;1;'13VL'L'e_ci. _ -- V ' 1
8. In the result, I ,9RbER "'% Tiic impugned cmicr is set aside. The ;n'a1:tcr the learned trial Judge for Ieconsiderafién _i:1vt1ie "of observations made herein and '~ 'V In Judge