Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramaiah vs M/S Prestige Estate Projects Pvt Ltd on 21 August, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION No. 22773/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Sri Ramaiah,
S/o late Muniveerappa,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at No. 21,
near Pooja Clinic,
NGR Layout,
Rupena Agrahara,
Bangalore-560 068. ... PETITIONER
(By Shri K.G. Lakshmipathi, Adv.)
AND:
1. M/s. Prestige Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
The falcon house No.1,
Main Guard Cross Road,
Bangalore-560 001,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Mr. Irfan Razack.
2. Smt. Nagaveni,
D/o late Kannappa Naidu,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at Vinayaka Nagar,
2
Whitefield Post,
Bangalore-560 066. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Navkesh Batra, Adv. for M/s. Nandi Law
Chambers for R-1; Notice to R-2 dispensed with)
...
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to
summon entire records in O.S.No. 91/2012 from
the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Bangalore Rural and quash the order dated
11.6.2012 at Annexure-Q and to allow I.A.No. 11
filed by the petitioner/plaintiff vide Annexure-Q in
O.S.No. 91/2012.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 11.6.2012 wherein I.A.11 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was rejected.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the trial Court granted an order of status quo, which was being extended from time to time. Thereafter, he filed I.A.11 to extend the order of status quo. The 3 trial Court by the impugned order rejected the same.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that no reasoning has been assigned as to why the application was rejected. That merely stating that I.A.11 is rejected has lead to miscarriage of justice.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contends that the impugned order is a reflection of the contention advanced by him. That the application has been decided on the two previous occasions and hence, the application has been rightly rejected.
5. On hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and after examining the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application by a one line order since various arguments had been 4 advanced on I.As. I and 11. The trial Court should necessarily reason its order while rejecting the application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is unsustainable purely on that ground. No order without reasons can be sustained.
6. Consequently, the order dated 11.6.2012 passed in O.S.No. 91/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural, is set aside. The trial Court shall rehear I.A.11. Under these circumstances, in view of the urgency pleaded, the trial Court is directed to hear and dispose off I.As. I and 11 within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court.
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Judge Nsu/-