IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.6512 OF 2015 (CPC) BETWEEN:
M/S SEA BIRD TOURIST CENTRE, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT #26, 2ND CROSS, SRIRAMA TEMPLE BUILDING, NEXT TO FEDERAL BANK, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560009, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.H.C.NAGARAJAIAH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR D.R, & LEX NEXUS ADV.-ABSENT) AND:
M/S SHREE SAI RENT-A-CAR PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:A/4, MAHAVEER NAGAR, CHS LIMITED, FACTORY LANE, BORIVALI (WEST), MUMBAI – 400092. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.N.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2015 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.8118/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 7 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Counsel for the appellant absent. No representation.
2. This appeal is filed for setting aside the order dated 12.08.2015 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.8118/2014 by the XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
3. The facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit against the defendant for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the vehicle bearing registration No.MH-04- FK-1521 and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant or anybody through it from forcibly taking possession of buses bearing registration Nos.MH-04-FK- 1521, MH-04-FK-3069 and MH-04-FK-3096, except in accordance with law.
4. In the said suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., seeking interim order. On hearing the parties, said I.A. was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred.
5. As per order dated 03.03.2016, it was suggested that the name of the approved valuator who would ascertain the value of all three buses which are the subject matter of this proceedings may be given and the report shall be submitted to the court. Thereafter, on 08.06.2016, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the court that the appellant has offered to surrender the buses, but the respondent/defendant did not accept the same. The respondent herein was given liberty to place the developments that had taken place in this appeal before the High Court of Bombay and seek appropriate reliefs with reference to disposal of buses or recovery of amount pursuant to order passed by this court. Thereafter, the parties have not appeared before this court.
6. The case status report pertaining to O.S. No.8118/2014 pending before the XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-45), Bangalore, discloses that the case is disposed of as withdrawn.
7. The present appeal is preferred against the order passed on I.A. No.1 in the said suit in O.S. No.8118/2014. In view of the withdrawal of the suit as per the order dated 24.04.2017, the appeal does not survive for consideration.
8. Hence, there are no valid grounds to admit the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ