IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR M.F.A. No. 182/2017 (CPC/SJ) BETWEEN:
M/s. Prestige Estate Project Pvt.Ltd., No.1, Main Guard Cross Road, Bengaluru – 560001.
Through its Executive Director-Legal, Mr.T. Arvind Pai. ... Appellant (By Sri Kishore Kumar and Aniketh B.C. Advs.) AND:
Mr.S.L. Sreenath, S/o. late S.A. Lakshman, Aged 38 years, R/at No.75/1, New No.1, 7th Cross, Bhavaninagar, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560029. ... Respondent (By Sri Ganapathi Hegade, Adv.) This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC, 1908 against the order dated 26.11.2013 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.8461/2013 on the file of the principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru etc.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.8461/2013 is seeking for order dated 7.11.2016 extending exparte order of temporary injunction passed by Trial Court being set aside.
2. Respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit in question of permanent injunction against defendants from causing interference with regard to his possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.
3. Defendant on service of suit summons have appeared and filed their written statement and have contested the matter. Plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction namely, I.A.No.1 and trial court by order dated 03.01.2014 granted an order of status-quo which has been subsequently extended from time to time as could be seen from the order sheet produced at annexure-A.
4. It is the grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that though defendant has argued the interlocutory application-I.A.No.1 on merits, trial court has extended the interim order on the prayer made by the plaintiff and without any justifiable cause shown by the plaintiff. Hence, on this ground, he seeks vacating the order dated 7.11.2016 extending the interim order of Temporary Injunction.
5. It is not in dispute that I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff before the trial court is not disposed of. The order sheet of the trial court also discloses that several adjournments have been granted and on all the dates of hearing interim order granted on I.A.No.1 has been extended from time to time.
6. Hence, reserving the liberty to the appellant- defendant to file a memo before the Trial Court to seek for expeditious disposal of I.A.No.1, this appeal can be disposed of and it would meet the ends of justice.
7. This court does not find any good reason as to why such prayer if made by the defendant would not be considered by the trial court. It is needless to state that in the event of such memo is filed by defendant, Trial Court shall consider the prayer made therein and dispose of pending IA No.1 expeditiously keeping in mind Order 39 Rule 3A and Case Flow Management Rules.
Subject to above observation, appeal stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE PN/JS