Karnataka High Court
Sri V Jayaramaiah vs Smt Manjula on 19 November, 2018
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M. Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7083 OF 2013(CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. V. JAYARAMAIAH
S/O VENKATACHALAIAH
AGED 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.751, 5TH MAIN
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II STAGE
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 086.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MANJULA
W/O SRI. B.R. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE
VISHWANEEDAM POST
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI
BANGALORE - 560 091.
2. SRI. N. GOPAL
S/O NADAKIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE
2
VISHWANEEDAM POST
BANGALORE - 560 091.
3. SRI. MUNEPPA @ MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE KENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS.
4. SRI. JAWARAIAH @ JAWARAPPA
S/O LATE KENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
5. SRI. DODDAIAH
S/O LATE KENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
6. SRI. J. DINESH
S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
7. SRI. SHANKARAPPA
S/O SRI. JAWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
8. SRI. B.J. DODDAIAH
S/O SRI. JAWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
9. SRI. D. NAGARAJ
S/O SRI. DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
10. SRI. KUMAR
S/O SRI. DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
11. SRI. K. SRIRAM
S/O SRI. DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
3
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT
BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
12. SMT. S. MANJULA
W/O SRI. B.S. VIJAY KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.84, 6TH BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 010.
13. SMT. K.R. INDIRA
W/O LATE S. SRINIVAS RAO
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.84, 6TH BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 010.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY R-1 SERVED; NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-13 IS
DISPENCED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2016)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43, RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED:08.08.2013 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.214 OF
2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE RURAL, NON
DISPOSAL OF IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39, RULE 1 AND 2
OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
This appeal was listed on 13.11.2018 when it was called out on two occasions. However, none appeared. The appeal is again listed today. None appeared for the appellant even today when called on two occasions. Perused the appeal papers.
2. This appeal is by the defendant in O.S.No.214/2013. The plaintiff- respondent No.1 has filed this suit for declaration of title and other consequential relief/s. The plaintiff - respondent No.1 has also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking ad interim temporary injunction against the appellant and the other defendants from interfering with the respondent No.1 - plaintiff's asserted possession of the two properties which are described in the Schedule to the application as well as the plaint. 5
3. The learned Civil Court granted ad interim ex parte injunction as prayed for, which was continued from time to time. On 8.8.2013, the learned counsel for the appellant and the other defendants requested the learned Civil Court to take up I.A.No.1 (on which ex parte orders were granted) for hearing contending that the ex parte injunction order was operating against him. The learned Civil Court, after recording such submission, adjourned the suit for hearing on I.A.1 to 14.8.2013. The present appeal is filed impugning the order dated 8.8.2013 by which the suit was adjourned for hearing on I.A.1, as stated above, after extending the interim order.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has not placed any material to show that the ex parte interim order granted on 5.2.2013, and extended on different 6 dates including on 8.8.2013 is subsisting. Nor is current status of I.A. placed on record.
5. The lackadaisical conduct of the appeal demonstrates that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, possibly also in view of the reason that I.A.1 is disposed of at a later date. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that no worthwhile purpose would be achieved by continuing the appeal on the board of this Court. As such, the appeal is dismissed for default.
SD/-
JUDGE nv