IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.3334 OF 2013 (CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT.GOWRAMMA, W/O.GAVIGOWDA, D/O.LATE HOMBALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/A.BARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK – 562117. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.H.R.SREEPADA, ADVOCATE FOR M/S RAM BHAT & SREEPADA ASSOCIATES) AND:
1. SMT. PUTTAMMA, W/O LATE DUREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
2. SRI. CHIKKAMARIGOWDA, S/O LATE DURGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE DURGEGOWDA & D/O LATE HOMBALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
4. SRI.KARIYAPPA, D/O LATE HOMBALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
5. SRI. RAMEGOWDA, S/O LATE HOMBALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
6. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA, S/O LATE HOMBALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/A.RAYASANDARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK – 562117.
7. HOUSING COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU.
8. SMT. SHIVAMMA, W/O.MANCHEGOWDA & D/O LATE HOMBALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KERALUSANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK.
9. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, W/O.KEMPEGOWDA & D/O LATE HOMBALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT HANCHAGULI VILLAGE, KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, PIN 562117. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVINDRA H.T, ADVOCATE FOR R7 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R8 AND R9 SERVED, R6 SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43, RULE 1(R) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2013 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.03/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 39, RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this appeal coming on for admission with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for respondent No.7 the matter is heard finally on merits. The remaining respondents are unrepresented.
2. This appeal was preferred by the appellant – plaintiff No.1 challenging the order on IA 3 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the defendant No.7 from disbursing the award amount of Rs.3,42,50,000/- in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6.
3. The counsel for the defendant No.7 - respondent No.7 has filed objection statement wherein it is stated that respondent No.7, the Board has already disbursed a sum of Rs.73,50,000/- (Rupees Seventy Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) to the 4th respondent Kariyappa and a sum of Rs.88,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Lakhs Only) to the 5th respondent Ramegowda, a sum of Rs.51,50,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs and fifty Thousand Only) to the 6th Respondent Ramakrishna and the balance compensation amount has been withheld by this respondent No.7 Karnataka Housing Board and the same has not been disbursed in view of the pendency of suit before the trial Court in O.S. No.3 of 2013 (old No.51 of 2012) and this respondent No.7 Karnataka Housing Board would await for final decision of the trial court. At present this respondent No.7 Karnataka Housing Board is not contemplating to disburse the balance compensation amount to either of the parties.
4. In view of the aforesaid objections it is evident that some portion of the amount has already been disbursed to the parties i.e., to respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 and No.7. The Karnataka Housing Board has given an undertaking that the balance amount will not be disbursed or released to any of the defendants/ respondents till disposal of the suit.
5. In view of the undertaking given by respondent No.7 there are valid grounds for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2013 and the said order needs to be modified.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.01.2013 passed on I.A.3 in O.S. No.3/2013 is set aside and the said impugned order is modified as under:
The respondent No.7 is restrained from disbursing the balance amount to the plaintiff or defendants till disposal of the suit.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl