IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MFA NO. 1644 OF 2017 (CPC) BETWEEN Smt. Prabha Gopalakrishna, W/o V. Gopalakrishna, Aged about 51 years, R/at No. 540, 3rd Block, 8th Cross, H.M.T. Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore – 560 097. … Appellant (By Sri. Manjunath K.V., Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. P. Anjanappa, S/o Late Puttappa, Aged about 62 years, R/at No.B-48, ‘B’ Cross, Pipeline, Bahubali Nagar, Jalahalli, Bangalore – 560 013.
2. P. Lalitha, D/o Late Puttappa, Major, R/at No. B-48, ‘B’ Cross, Pipeline, Bahubali Nagar, Jalahalli, Bangalore – 560 013.
3. P. Vijayalakshmi, D/o Late Puttappa, Major, R/at No. B-48, ‘B’ Cross, Pipeline, Bahubali Nagar, Jalahalli, Bangalore – 560 013.
4. P. Subhadramma, D/o Late Puttappa, Major, R/at No. B-48, ‘B’ Cross, Pipeline, Bahubali Nagar, Jalahalli, Bangalore – 560 013.
5. P. Ashok, S/o Late Puttappa, Major, R/at No. B-48, ‘B’ Cross, Pipeline, Bahubali Nagar, Jalahalli, Bangalore – 560 013.
6. State Bank of Patiala, N.R. Square Branch, Post Box No. 6769, Badami House, Bangalore – 560 002. Rep. by its Manager.
7. Canara Bank, Gokula Branch, Mathikere, Bangalore. Rep. by its Manager.
8. Smt. P.S. Jayalakshmi, W/o Sathyanarayana, Aged about 63 years, R/at No.77/8, 2nd Main Road, Vyalikaval, Bangalore – 560 003.
9. G. Venkateshprasad, S/o Gangaiah, Aged about 63 years, R/at No. 104, Venkatadri, 3rd Main Road, 4th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086.
10. Arun Kumar, S/o G. Venkateshprasad, Aged about 42 years, R/at No. 104, Venkatadri, 3rd Main Road, 4th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086. … Respondents (By Sri. V.S. Venkatesh, Sri. A. Gowda, Advocates for Sri. N.K. Harish, Advocate for R1.
Sri. S.N. Bhat, Advocate for R6. R2, R3, R4, R5, R7, R8 – Served.
Notice to R9 and R10 is dispensed with) This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC, against the order dated 11.08.2016, passed on I.A.No. I to III in O.S.No. 7062/2015 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, T.I. granted on 13.08.2015 has not been extended, I.A.No. I to III are to be kept in abeyance.
This MFA coming on for admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both the side, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.
2. The factual matrix of the case is as under:
One Smt.T.S.Jayalakshmi sold the House List No.224 to one G.Venkateshparasad vide sale deed dated 19.6.2003. The said property is the subject matter of the lis between the parties and described in the schedule in detail.
3. One G.Venkateshprasad had availed a loan from State Bank of Patiala - defendant No.6 mortgaging the suit schedule property. Due to non-repayment of loan, the same was auctioned by defendant No.6 vide auction dated 23.11.2004 to recover the debt, in which the plaintiff was the successful bidder and a sale certificate dated 22.12.2004 was issued and registered at jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, Bangalore by the State Bank of Patiala to the plaintiff and he was put in possession of the same.
4. In the meanwhile, the defendants 1 to 5 started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff to protect his interest filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.4434/2008 and obtained an interim order of temporary injunction. Later the suit was dismissed and an appeal was filed in RFA No.462/2014 and this Court vide order dated 17.06.2015 disposed of the appeal granting liberty to file a comprehensive suit for declaration. Accordingly, the suit in O.S.No.7062/2015 is filed. The Court below vide order dated 13.08.2015 granted an exparte ad interim temporary injunction as prayed in I.A.No.1 & 2. Whereas in the order sheet dated 7.9.2015 it indicates that interim order of TI is extended till next date of hearing. On 30.09.2015 interim order was again extended till further order.
5. Whereas in the order sheet dated 11.08.2016 it states that TI granted on 13.08.2015 has not been extended. There is no TI as on today, when the parties are seeking time to advance the argument on I.A.No.I to III, those I.As are to be kept in abeyance.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that the trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the interim order granted on 13.08.2015 has not bee extended and that there was no interim order existing as on 11.08.2016 which is factually incorrect as the interim order granted on 13.08.2015 had been extended and on 30.09.2015 the interim order was extended till further orders as could be seen from the order sheet of the Court below. I.A.1 to 3 filed under Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and 4 are still pending and the same has been kept in abeyance by the Court below by vacating the interim order.
7. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents, it is stated that I.A.1 to 3 filed by both plaintiff and defendants are pending, the Court below has kept the said applications in abeyance. Hence, it does not arise in this appeal to dispose of the matter on merits. The plaintiff and defendants have to agitate the matter before the trial Court in respect of I.A.1 to 3 which are kept in abeyance. Till such time, the interim order of temporary injunction granted on 13.08.2015 by the Court below, is extended pending disposal of the suit.
With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE DKB