IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.42574-42577/2014(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
M/S. ANNABEL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO. IE, JHANDENWALA NEW DELHI.
AND ONE OF ITS OFFICES AT:
NO. 356/1/1, DLF NEW TOWN BEGUR, AKSHAYA NAGAR MAIN ROAD OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560068.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL MRS. G. REVATHY ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.B. ANIRUDH, ADVOCATE FOR M/s DUA ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI M. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS SON OF LATE MUNINAGAPPA RESIDING AT NO. 264, 9TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, VISHWAPRIYA NAGAR, BEGUR POST, BANGALORE-560068.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.A. MITHUN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G. D. ASHWATHNARAYANA, ADVOCATE) **** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 2.9.2014 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT., BANGALORE IN O.S. No.1206/2014 TO THE EXTENT THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED AND REVERSE THE SAME BY GRANTING AN EXPARTE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENT, HIS MEN AND AGENTS FROM IN ANY MANNER INTERFERING WITH THE PETITIONER’S PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OVER THE SUIT SCHEDULE “B” PROPERTY.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner – plaintiff filed these writ petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 2.9.2014 made in O.S. No.1206/2014 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural district, Bangalore, issuing suit summons to the defendant and emergent notice on I.A. No.1 and to grant the exparte order of Temporary Injunction.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has filed the suit for Permanent Injunction contending that he is the owner in possession of the property and the defendant has no manner of right, title and interest to interfere with the same. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has also filed I.A. No.1 for Temporary Injunction, reiterating the averments made in the plaint. The trial Court considering the plaint averments, the application and the documents produced by the plaintiff, was of the view that before passing orders on I.A. No.1, it is just and proper to hear the defendant.
Hence issued suit summons to the defendant and emergent notice on I.A. No.1. Against the said order, the present writ petitions are filed.
3. This Court by an order dated 5.9.2014 while issuing notice, granted an interim order as prayed for, so far as ‘B’ schedule properties to the present petition, restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the ‘B’ schedule properties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant submits that the defendant filed the written statement/objections on 5.3.2015 itself. If it is so, the trial Court ought to have considered the application – I.A. No.1 and the objections and pass orders on the application.
However, in view of pendency of the writ petitions, the trial Court has not proceeded.
5. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of. The trial Court is directed to consider I.A. No.1 for Temporary Injunction and the objections already filed by the defendant and pass orders strictly in accordance with law.
6. The trial Court is also directed to consider other I.As., if any in the suit and proceed in accordance with law.
It is also open for the respondents to move pending applications, if any which are clubbed with the present suit.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-