In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL M.F.A.No. 4419/2015 BETWEEN M/S. CHAITHANYA PROJECTS (P) LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHAITHANYA, NO.14, SERVICE ROAD, AIRPORAT ROAD, DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560 071, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.GURUPRASAD ... APPELLANT (BY SRI NIKHILESH RAO M, ADV.) AND 1. SRI NAGESH REDDY S/O CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT MANIGATTA VILLAGE, HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. 2. SMT.UMADEVI W/O VENKATA REDDY, D/O CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT MANIGATTA VILLAGE, HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. 3. SMT.MANJULA W/O RAVI, 2 D/O CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT MANIGATTA VILLAGE, HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. 4. SRI.G.N.MUNIYAPPA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT GUNJUR VILLAGE & POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 087. 5. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NERIGA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK. 6. SMT.PAPAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NERIGA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK. 7. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O LAKSHMAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT GUNJUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. 8. SRI.R.GOPALA REDDY @ VENKATA REDDY S/O LATE V.RAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT C/O VENKATAMMA, MUTHSANDRA VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. 9. SMT.NARAYANAMMA W/O CHANGALARAYA REDDY, D/O LATE V.RAMAIAH REDDY, 3 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT MANIGATTA VILLAGE, SHYANABHOGARAHALLI POST, HOLUR VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT. 10. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O CHANGA REDDY, D/O LATE V.RAMAIAH REDDY, R/AT MANIGATTA VILLAGE, SHYANABHOGARAHALLI POST, HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT. 11. SMT.GAYATHRAMMA W/O VIJAYA RAGHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT GUNJUR VILLAGE & POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 087. 12. G.A.RAMASWAMY REDDY S/O LATE APPI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT GUNJUR VILLAGE & POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 087. 13. SMT.VASANTHAMMA W/O BHASKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT GUNJUR VILLAGE & POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 087. 14. SRI.G.M.THIMMA REDDY S/O MARISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.11-12, ALBERT VICTOR ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE-560 002. 15. SRI RAMAIAH S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/AT GUNJUR VILLAGE & POST, 4 VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 087. 16. G.R.MUNIVEERAPPA S/O SRI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT GUNJUR VILLAGE & POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 087. 17. SRI.G.T. KRISHNAPPA REDDY S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT GUNJUR VILLAGE & POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 087. 18. SRI.B.N.ADARSH S/O B.S.N. HARI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.4609, 6TH FLOOR, HEGH POINT-IV, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V VIJAYASHEKARA GOWDA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3) ***** THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43, RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:14.5.2015 PASSED ON I.A.2 IN O.S.NO.855/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ISSUING SUIT SUMMONS AND NOTICE ON IA NO.2 AND DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against an exparte order of temporary injunction granted by the Court below directing the parties, that is, both plaintiff and defendants 11 and 16 ‘to 5 maintain status quo without alienating item No.1, Sy. No.167/1 measuring 7 acres 34 guntas of land situated at Gunjur Village till the next date of hearing’. The next date of hearing was fixed as 16.06.2015. Apparently, this order is passed by the vacation Judge. On 16.06.2015, defendants have appeared before the Court below and have filed objections to the application filed for grant of temporary injunction. It is submitted at the bar that the matter is now listed on 27.07.2015. 2. Several contentions are urged on merits by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that the order under challenge is not sustainable in law as the Court below has not applied its mind to the pleadings and the documents on record and has not come to any definite conclusion that grant of exparte order of temporary injunction was necessitated as otherwise irreparable injury would result to the plaintiff. 3. I do not find it just and necessary to go into the merits of these contentions at this stage. 4. Admittedly, the mater is listed before the Court below for consideration of the application filed for temporary injunction on 27.07.2015. If the appellant has not filed any objections, he 6 shall file objections by the next date of hearing. The interim order granted by the Court below is restricted only till 27.07.2015. The Court below is directed to hear both parties and pass appropriate orders on merits on the said date. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the matter. Sd/- JUDGE VP .