Karnataka High Court
Sgk Investment Trust vs Jambu Kannan on 23 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7715
WP No. 4021 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4021 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SGK INVESTMENT TRUST
A REGISTERED TRUST
HAVING ITS OFIFCE AT
NO 855, 13TH MAIN
3RD BLOCK, 4TH CROSS
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR K C GANESH
TRUT PRESIDENT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANEESHA KONGOVI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAMBU KANNAN
Digitally
WIFE OF LATE K V KANNAN
signed by AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
VANDANA S RESIDING AT FLT NO 104 AND 105
Location: SRI SAILAM APRTMENTS
HIGH NO 59, 4TH MAIN ROAD
COURT OF
KARNATAKA GAVIPURAM EXTENSION
BENGALURU 560019
2. MR DASHARATHI K V
SON OF LATE K V KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
RESIDING AT: APARTMENT NO A1- 513
SOBHA DEWFLOWER
SARAKKI MAIN ROAD
J P NAGAR, 1ST PHASE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7715
WP No. 4021 of 2024
3. MRS SOWMYA DASHARATHI
WIFE OF MR DASHARATHI K V
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
APARTMENT NO A1- 513
SOBHA DEWFLOWER
SARAKKI MAIN ROAD
J P NAGAR, 1ST PHASE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
4. MRS SHEELA SRIPATHI
WIFE OF LATE MR SIRPATHI K V
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING T FLAT NO 402
SRI SALIAM APARTMENT
NO 59, 4TH MAIN ROAD
GAVIPURAM EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 019.
5. MRS SHRUTHI RANJANI K V
D/O LATE M R SRIPATHI K V
AGEDA BOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO 402
SRI SALIAM APARTMENT
NO 59, 4TH MAIN ROAD
GAVIPURAM EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 019.
6. MS K V SRINIDHI
DAUGHETER OF LATE MR SRIPATHI K V
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO 402
SRI SALIAM APARTMENT
NO 59, 4TH MAIN ROAD
GAVIPURAM EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 019.
7. MR K V SUDARSHAN
SON OFLATE MR SRIPATHI K V
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO 402
SRI SALIAM APARTMENT
NO 59, 4TH MAIN ROAD
GAVIPURAM EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 019.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7715
WP No. 4021 of 2024
8. ONE WOLF VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMAPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THECOMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISERED HEADQUARTERS AT
NO 169/3, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH CROSS
1ST STAGE, INDIRANGAR
BENGALURU - 560 038.
REPRSENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR SAJJID ALI AGA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHASHI KUMAR G V.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1
VIDE ORDER DATED: 08.02.2024 NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-8 D/W)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/01/2024 PASSED BY THE
HONBLE VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CITY CIVIL
COURT, BENGALURU IN OS NO. 640/2024 INSOFAR AS IT GRANTS
AN ORDER OF EX-PARTE INJUNCTION IN RESPECT OF IA NO. II
AND IA NO. IV FILED THEREIN (ANNEXURE-A OF THIS WP).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the defendant No.7 in O.S.No.640/2024 is directed against the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the VIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore whereby the Trial Court granted an ad interim exparte order of temporary injunction on I.A.Nos.2 and 4 whereby the petitioner-defendant No.7 was restrained from alienating, encumbering or creating any third party rights over the suit A schedule property and from -4- NC: 2024:KHC:7715 WP No. 4021 of 2024 changing or altering the nature and character of the said property by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed 5 interim applications including I.A.Nos.2 and 4 are for an ad interim exparte order of temporary injunction restraining defendant No.7 from alienating, encumbering or creating any third party rights over the suit A schedule property and from changing or altering its nature or character. By the impugned order of the Trial Court an ad interim exparte order of temporary injunction against the petitioner-defendant No.7, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff on instructions submits that the suit is posted before the Trial Court on 28.02.2024 and necessary directions may be issued to the Trial -5- NC: 2024:KHC:7715 WP No. 4021 of 2024 Court to consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A.Nos.2 & 4 in accordance with law, till which time the petitioner may be restrained from alienating or changing or altering the nature and character of the said property.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would file its statement of objections to I.A.Nos.2 & 4 on 28.02.2024 and necessary directions may be given to the Trial Court to dispose of I.A.Nos.2 & 4 as expeditiously as possible. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without assigning cogent reasons as to why notice under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC was being dispensed with before passing an ad interim exparte order of temporary injunction. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by he Trial Court deserves to be set aside.
6. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, it is seen that the suit is posted before the Trial Court on 28.02.2024. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and -6- NC: 2024:KHC:7715 WP No. 4021 of 2024 appropriate to dispose of this petition by modifying the impugned order only insofar as I.A.Nos.2 & 4 only are concerned and only as against the petitioner-defendant No.7 and by directing the Trial Court to dispose of I.A.Nos.2 & 4 on or before 11.03.2024.
7. It is further directed that till disposal of I.A.Nos.2 & 4 by the Trial Court, petitioner-defendant No.7 shall not alienate, encumber or create any third party rights and shall not put up any construction over the suit A schedule property. It is hereby clarified that the Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders on I.A.Nos.2 & 4 without being influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned order as well as in the present order.
8. It is needless to state in the present order is restricted to the petitioner-defendant No.7 and respondent No.1-plaintiff and would not be applicable to the remaining defendants.
Sd/-
JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22