IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.9808 OF 2013 (CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT.ASHA SWAMINATHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O SWAMINATHAN, R/O NO.18/A, MSR NAGAR, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BENGALURU – 560054. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR FOR M/S DUA ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE) AND:
M/S DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.573, DEALING CHAMBERS, J.M.ROAD, PUNE – 411044, MAHARASTRA STATE.
AND ALSO AT NO.44, KANAKAPURA ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, WARD NO.58, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560069, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.PRAKASH R DHARIWAL. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA FOR M/S HOLLA & HOLLA ADVOCATE) ***** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2013 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.3386/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 42ND ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC FOR T.I.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed for setting aside the order dated 3.9.2013 passed by the Court of the 42nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore in O.S. No.3386/2012.
3. The facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants wherein he had filed an application IA 2 seeking ad interim injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties.
4. The counsel for the appellant submitted that initially the suit was filed for bare injunction. Later, the plaintiff has got amended the plaint by including the relief of declaration and possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Under these circumstances, the present appeal do not survive for consideration. The appellant has also filed another application before the trial Court for restraining the defendant from changing or altering the nature of the suit schedule property for which the defendant respondents have filed objections. On hearing both the parties the said matter is posted on 16.2.2019 for orders on IA.
5. In view of the submission made by both the counsels and subsequent events in the suit, there are no valid grounds to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl