IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.10961 OF 2013 (CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT.PREETHI RAJ, W/O RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.1375, 9TH MAIN, SHALINE COMFORTS, SRINIVAS NAGAR, DR.RAJ ROAD, BENGALURU – 560085. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
KUM.V.CHAYADEVI, D/O LATE M.VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.2, NO.68, 3RD CROSS ROAD, R.K.GARDEN, NEW B.L.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560054. ...RESPONDENT THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4795/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Respondent is unrepresented.
3. The appellant is the defendant before the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. In the present case, status quo order was passed on 02.01.2014.
5. Counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the trial Court failed to consider the legal documents proving prima facie title of the appellant/defendant. The defendant, having placed sufficient materials, has demonstrated that in the event of granting injunction, more hardship and injury would be caused to the defendant, but the trial Judge has failed to consider and appreciate the material documents.
6. As could be seen from the impugned order, the trial Court has observed that appellant/defendant had filed O.S.No.662/2012 against the respondent/plaintiff before the P.C.J., Bengaluru Rural District and obtained interim order on I.A.No.1 and filed caveat petition before the Civil Court. So the conduct of the defendant shows that she is not fair in prosecuting her case before the proper forum.
7. Counsel for the appellant submitted that earlier the said property was within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru Rural Court, as such, the suit was filed before the Bengaluru Rural Court.
8. It is observed by the lower Court that both plaintiff and defendant have produced the documents to prove their title and possession.
9. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the case is posted before the trial Court for plaintiff’s evidence and no efforts are made by the plaintiff to lead her evidence. Sofar, the appellant/defendant has not made any construction on her property or encroached the property of the respondent/plaintiff.
10. Considering the submission of the counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that both the parties may be directed to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.4795/2012 pending on the file of XXXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bengaluru City.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2013 for production of additional documents does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, same is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR