Karnataka High Court
Sri. Begur Satyanarayan @ B.S. Narayan vs Sri. B.H. Channappa on 19 February, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
WRIT PETITION No.7135/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BEGUR SATYANARAYAN @ B.S.NARAYAN
S/O LATE BEGUR HANUMANTHA RAO, 82 YEARS
R/O NO.6/13, GRANTS BUILDING
ARTHUR BUNDER ROAD, COLABA
MUMBAI - 400005
REP. BY GPA HOLDER AND HIS SON
BEGUR ASHOK NARAYAN. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADV.)
AND :
1. SRI. B.H. CHANNAPPA, 85 YEARS
S/O LATE BEGUR HANUMANTHA RAO
R/O YESHODA NILAYA
VIVEKNAGAR EAST
NEAR IBRAHIMPURA RAILWAY GATE
BIJAPUR 576101
2. SRI H. NANJUNDAIAH, 79 YEARS
S/O LATE BEGUR HANUMANTHA RAO
R/O NO.502, SWAMY TOWERS
B BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR
GANDHI BAZAR, BANGALORE 560004
3. SRI B.H. GOPAL RAO, 77 YEARS
S/O LATE BEGUR HANUMANTHA RAO
R/O NO.1598, 1ST MAIN ROAD
NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 021.
2
4. SRI B.H. NAGARAJA RAO, 45 YEARS
S/O LATE BEGUR HANUMANTHA RAO
R/O NO.515, KCHS LAYOUT
1ST STAGE, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR
BANGALORE 560056
5. SRI B.N. ANANTHA RAM, 63 YEARS
S/O LATE BEGUR HANUMANTHA RAO
R/O P.O.12, 7TH MAIN
2ND STAGE, N.S. PALYA
BTM LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560076
6. SRI S. UMESH RAO, 40 YEARS
S/O LATE SURYA NARAYANA RAO
R/O FLAT NO.304, SHRAVANTH GOKURI
3RD CROSS, KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD
DWARAKA NAGAR, HOSAKEREHALLI
BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE 560085
7. SRI S. GURPRASAD RAO, 38 YEARS
S/O LATE SURYA NARAYANA RAO
R/O FLAT NO.303, PAVAMANA RESIDENCY
43RD MAIN, 52ND CROSS
POORNAPRAGNA LAYOUT
UTTARAHALLI
BANGALORE 560061. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KESHAV R. AGNIHOTRI, ADV. FOR C/R6 & R7)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned trial judge has kept alive the exparte order of temporary injunction granted on 22.12.2012 though 3 I-defendant had entered caveat and filed application for vacating the exparte order of temporary injunction.
2. The learned trial judge instead of deciding the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, and application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, has chosen to pass an order to justify grant of an exparte order of temporary injunction despite caveat filed by I-defendant.
3. In a decision reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249 (in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and Others -vs- Nirmala Devi and Others) the Supreme Court while deprecating the practice of granting an exparte order of temporary injunction for unlimited period and thereafter allowing the exparte order to be in force has held:
"44. Usually the court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting exparte ad- interim injunctions. The better course for the court is to give a short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable bipartite orders. Experience reveals that exparte interim injunction order in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the 4 defendants or the respondents and in case the court has to grant exparte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.
45. If an exparte injunction order is granted, then in that case an endeavor should be made to dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as may be possible, preferably as soon as the defendant appears in the court.
46. It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues indefinitely. The other appropriate order can be to limit the life of the exparte injunction or stay order for a week or so because in such cases the usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging the matters by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after obtaining exparte injunction orders or stay orders may not find encouragement
48. It is a typical exampled of how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoer."
4. Therefore, the leaned trial judge is directed to decide the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, and application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, within a period of one month from today for which both parties shall 5 extend their co-operation. The contentions urged herein are kept open. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-