Sri K.R. Naveena vs Sri D.O Suresh Babu on 3 November, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K.R. Naveena vs Sri D.O Suresh Babu on 3 November, 2014

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

        WRIT PETITION NO.44574/2014 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI K.R.NAVEENA,
S/O.LATE RAMANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
KUDUVATHI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101.                 ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI P.N.NANJA REDDY, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SRI D.O.SURESH BABU,
       S/O.LATE D.N.OBALAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT NO.359,
       S.R.V. ROAD,
       KANDAVARA BAGILU,
       CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN AND
       DISTRICT-562 101.

2.     SRI D.V.SANTHOSH KUMAR,
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
       S/O.LATE D.N.VENKATARAYAPPA,
       R/AT NO.359, S.R.V.ROAD,
       KANDAVARA BAGILU,
       CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN AND
       DISTRICT-562 101.
                                2



3.    SRI D.N.RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
      S/O.DEVULLA NARASAPPA,
      AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

4.    SRI D.R.SANJAY,
      S/O.D.N.RAMAKRISHNA,
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

5.    SRI D.R.SANDEEP,
      S/O.D.N.RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

      NOS.3, 4 AND 5 ARE
      R/AT NO.359, S.R.V.ROAD,
      KANDAVARA BAGILU,
      CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN AND
      DISTRICT-562 101.                      ... RESPONDENTS

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DT.27.8.14 ON IA.1 IN OS.NO.508/14, ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR AS THE SAME
IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW
VIDE ANN-C.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

S The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 27.08.2014 on IA.No.1 in O.S.No.508/2014. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. In the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC is filed seeking temporary injunction. The Court below by the order impugned herein has directed 3 notice to the defendants to consider the said application along with the suit summons.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Madhu Productions -vs- Sundaram Files & Ors (ILR 2012 KAR

460) would contend that the Court below ought to have applied its mind to the prayer made in the application and on exercising its discretion should have passed appropriate orders. It is in that view contended that the Court below was not justified in merely directing notice when the petitioner had relied on the documents before it to contend that an exparte ad-interim order of injunction is to be passed.

3. Having noticed the contention, there can be no dispute whatsoever with regard to legal position. Keeping in view the nature of injunction that has been sought, the Trial Court has issued notice to the respondents and suit summons has also been directed. The date indicated therein for appearance of the defendants was on 4 22.09.2014 which has elapsed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the defendants are evading service of notice on I.A. and the suit summons and as such, the petitioner is prejudiced. If in fact that is the position, certainly, it would be open for the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Court below and if the Court below is satisfied that the defendants are evading notice, certainly, the Court below would take note of the decision referred to supra and consider as to whether an exparte ad-interim order is to be passed or not.

Hence, leaving this aspect open, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court