Karnataka High Court
M/S Cornerstone Properties vs Sri M Babu Reddy on 18 January, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.2957/2018(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES
PRIVATE LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.540
C.M.H. ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560038.
DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SRISURESH R. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R. S. RAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI M. BABU REDDY,
S/O LATE T. MUNI REDDY,
RESIDENT OF MUTHSANDRA VILLAGE,
ANUGONDANA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560038. ... RESPONDENT
...
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT
I.A.NO.1/2018 UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 & 2 R/W
SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IN
O.S.NO.24/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-P ON THE FILE OF TRIAL
COURT PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT HOSKOTE
RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENT FROM PUTTING UP ANY
FURTHER CONSTRUCTIONS/STRUCTURES IN ANY MANNER ON
THE PETITIONER SCHEDULE PROPERTY.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court has filed the present writ petition to issue appropriate writ allowing the interlocutory application - I.A.I/2018 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.24/2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Hoskote restraining the respondent from putting up any further constructions/structures in any manner on the petition schedule property.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up further illegal constructions/structure without following the bye-laws and the approved plan that too without leaving the set backs. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint and application by the order dated 11.1.2018 issued emergent notice on I.A.1; 3 summons to defendant and listed the matter on 20.2.2018. It has also specifically recorded that it has perused the plaint and documents and hence, at that stage, no grounds were made out by the plaintiff for granting an exparte temporary injunction. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
4. Sri R.S. Ravi, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that if the learned Judge had perused the contents of plaint and application in proper perspective, such an order could not have been passed. Even assuming that the learned Judge has not properly considered the averments made in the plaint as well as the application, still the trial Court has only stated that it has perused the plaint and documents and at that stage, the plaintiff has not made out any ground to grant an exparte temporary injunction. Therefore, the 4 trial Court without expressing anything about I.A.I, has issued emergent notice on I.A. and summons to defendant. The said order is final order. What is sought in the present writ petition is only appropriate writ allowing the application - I.A.1/2018 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to grant temporary injunction. This Court cannot straightaway issue such a mandamus under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence, declines to exercise such power.
5. However, it is always open for the petitioner to move the trial Court by filing appropriate application for temporary injunction in accordance with law as soon as the defendant is served in the suit.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed.
Sd/-
Judge Nsu/-