IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.54154/2017 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
MRS. JHARNA PAUL W/O. MR. SATISH CHANDRA PAUL AGED 70 YEARS C/O. PULAK DEB, FLAT NO.B 303 SHILPITHA SPLENDOUR ANNEX CHINNAPPA LAYOUT MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU-560 048. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.P. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. ARPITA DASGUPTA W/O.MR.SABUJ PAUL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O. B3#10-05 ELITA PROMENADE # 101 18TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE OPP. RBI WATER TANK BENGALURU-560 078.
2. SABUJ PAUL S/O. SATISH CHANDRA PAUL AGED 43 YEARS RESIDING AT 2960 DON MILLS ROAD UNIT 803 TORONTO M 2J 3B8 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MC 4543/2017 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT AND TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.2/17 DATED 18.09.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND REJECT THE SAID I.A. VIDE ANNEXURE-K WITH COST THROUGHOUT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.09.2017 passed on I.A.No.2/2017 at Annexure-L to the petition. The order impugned dated 18.09.2017 is the one passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code on an I.A. which had been filed before the Court below by the petitioner therein.
2. The petitioner herein contends that though in the said proceedings, the order is passed against the respondent No.2, the order in fact affects the interest of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner is the *owner in respect of the premises to which the present injunction order is issued and therefore, the right of the petitioner would stand affected.
3. Even if such contention is putforth by the petitioner herein, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is premature inasmuch as the petitioner would * Corrected vide Court Order dt.05-01-2018 have the liberty of filing an appropriate application seeking impleadment to the proceedings and seeking for appropriate orders to vacate the interim order, if such right is made out before the Court below.
4. It is no doubt true that as pointed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings pending before the Court below is an inter-se matrimonial matter between the respondents herein. However, what is presently being contended is only with regard to the interim order, which in fact is claimed to affect the right of the petitioner. If that be the position, to that extent the right would be available to the petitioner to make such application before the Court below. If such application is filed before the Court below, the Court below shall take note of the same and pass orders thereon on its merits as expeditiously as possible, after providing opportunity to all the parties concerned.
With the said liberty, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST