IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 57224 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
MR.PRAHALAD.B.S.
S/O SATHYANARAYANA ACHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A NO. T.P.VENUGOPAL LAYOUT ANANDNAGAR, MAIN ROAD HEBBAL POST, BANGALORE- 560 024 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, ADV.) AND:
1. M/S. B TV NEWS CHANNEL PRIVATE LIMITED (INCORPORATED & REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT) HAVING THEIR REGISTERED ADDRESS AT 32/1-2 CRESCENT TOWER, HIGH GROUND, CRESCENT ROAD BENGALURU- 560 001 REP. BY THE EDITOR-IN CHIEF 2. MR.KUMAR MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S B TV NEWS CHANNEL PRIVATE LIMITED (INCORPORATED & REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT) HAVING THEIR REGISTERED ADDRESS AT 32/1-2 CRESCENT TOWER, HIGH GROUND, CRESCENT ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001 … RESPONDENTS - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT DIRECTING ONLY EMERGENT NOTICE BY MEANS OF ORDER DATED: 17.12.2018 ON IA NO. 1 IN O.S. NO. 9062/2018 PASSED BY THE LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH NO. 56) BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND NOT GRANTING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Trial Court, by which the trial Court has refused to grant an exparte order of injunction.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the records. The impugned order reads as under:
“Heard.
Perused the records, I have not found any grounds to pass ex-parte interim order on I.A.No.1. Hence, issue emergent notice and suit summons to defendants by 30.01.2019”.
4. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and is cryptic and arbitrary. The trial Court without assigning any reason has refused to grant exparte injunction to the petitioner. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed and set-aside. The trial Court is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 142 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 afresh and pass a speaking order on 14.01.2019.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE brn