IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.1936 OF 2015 (CPC) BETWEEN:
1. MISS SINDHU S, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O. C. SADASHIVA REDDY, 2. MRS. G.R. VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O C.SADASHIVA REDDY.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 307, VII MAIN, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU – 560030.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ANIL REDDY, S/O ADINARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.80, WITMAN DRIVE BREINISVILLE, PA 18031 U.S.A, REP: BY ITS PA HOLDER & MOTHER MRS. G.R. SHANTHAMMA.
2. MRS. M LATHA, W/O G.R.CHENNAKESHAVA REDDY, AGED 56 YEARS, R/A NO.185, D & E, VI CROSS, II BLOCK, VISHWAPRIYA NAGAR, BEGUR, BENGALURU - 560 068.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SEETHARAM, ADVOCATE FOR M/S KOCHHAR AND CO. FOR R1 R2 SERVED) **** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) OF CPC, 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ORDER DATED: 12.02.2015 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.8299/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the counsel, heard arguments for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2015 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.8299/2013 passed by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-28) and to reject I.A.No.1 in the said suit.
3. The relevant portion of the impugned order passed on I.A.No1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC reads as under:
“ORDER In the result, I.A.No.I filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. is allowed.
The defendants, their agents, servants, legal heirs, assigness and successors are restrained from selling, leasing, renting, assigning, transferring, alienating and conveying the schedule property for a period of one year from the date of this order.”
4. The aforesaid order was for a limited period of one year from the date of said order i.e., 12.02.2015. The said interim order has come to an end on expiry of a period of one year from 12.02.2015 and there are no records to show that the said order was extended or continued for a further period.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the said order was not extended.
6. This Court, by order dated 28.04.2015, had stayed the impugned order. Since the impugned order passed by the trial Court is expired, there are no valid grounds to consider the legality of the said order.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR