Karnataka High Court
M/S Global Solutions vs Sri Amith Rathore on 14 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.1603 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT NO.61 AND 62, 1ST CROSS,
RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT,
MUDDINAPALY DEEPA COMPLEX MAIN ROAD,
NAGARBHAVI, 2ND STAGE,
ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU 560091.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOUTAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAJENDRA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. AMITH RATHORE
SON OF SUNDAR LAL RATHORE,
AGED ABUT 58 YEARS,
HAVING OFFICE AT SR SEATING PRIVATE LIMITED
# V13, 6TH , 2ND BLOCK,
NARAYANAPPA BLOCK,
R T NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NARASIMHAN S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE LATER PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED
13.01.2022 VIDE ANNX-F EXTENDING THE INTERIM
ORDER PASSED BY THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT
BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.6529/2021.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 13.1.2022 i.e. the portion of the order extending the interim order passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.6529/2021 has filed the present writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
The respondent has filed a suit against the petitioner in O.S.No.6529/2021. In the said suit, the respondent has filed an application seeking an exparte ad-interim order of temporary injunction. The Trial Court after hearing the respondent passed an exparte order of temporary injunction on 4.12.2021. 3 Thereafter, the Trial Court issued summons to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and filed written statement and also filed a memo stating that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction as per Sections 19 and 22 (4) of the Designs Act. The said application was opposed by the respondent.
The Trial Court after hearing the parties allowed the memo filed by the petitioner and transferred the suit to this Court vide order dated 13.1.2022. While allowing the memo, the Trial Court has extended the interim order till the appearance of the parties before this Court. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in 4 extending the interim order. In order to buttress his argument he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.D. CONTAINERS INDORE V. MOLD-TEK PACKAGING LIMITED reported in (2021) 3 SCC 289 and the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of R.N. GUPTA & CO. LTD. JASOLA NEW DELHI V. M/S ACTION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTS LTD. DUDHOLA & 3 OTHERS reported in (2016) 119 ALR (SUM 4)2. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has got an alternative remedy available under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. He further submits that the Trial Court has granted an exparte ad-interim order of injunction and the same is extended from time to time. In support of his 5 contention he has placed reliance on the following judgments :
1. Lambda Eastern Telecommunication and Ors. V. Acme Tele-Power Private Ltd. and Ors.
(MANU/UC/0093/2008)
3. Astral Polytechnik Limited V. Ashirvad Pipes Private Limited and Ors.
(MANU/SC/0119/2008)
4. S.D. Containers, Indore V. Mold Tek Packaging Ltd. (MANU/SC/0907/2020) Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Trial Court could not have extended the impugned order while transferring the suit. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.D.Containers Indore supra. There is no dispute in regard to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if it is found that a defence or ground under Section 19 of the Designs Act is availed of, nothing further is to be seen by the District Court and he has no option but to transfer the case to the High Court for decision including the interim injunction application.
8. In the said decision during the pendency of the suit before the District Court there was no ad- interim order of injunction. In the present case, the Trial Court has granted exparte ad-interim order of injunction and same was extended from time to time. The said application for temporary injunction is still 7 pending consideration. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case in hand. If the impugned order is not extended, it would defeat the right of the respondent. The Trial Court is justified in extending the impugned order granted by the Trial Court. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE rs