IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5189 OF 2019 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6611 OF 2019 (CPC) In MFA 5189/2019 BETWEEN Smt. Shanthakumari, W/o. Nagaraj, Aged about 60 years, Residing at No.69, Manjunatha Charana, Garudachar Palya, Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru-560048.
(By Sri.T.N.Raghupathy, Advocate for Sri. Bhadrinath R., Advocate) AND 1. Sri. Ramaiah Reddy, S/o. Late H.P.Papaiah Reddy, Aged about 64 years, R/at Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli-560045, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru.
…Appellant Represented by his GPA Holder, Sri. H.R.Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. S.Raghurama Reddy, Aged about 46 years, R/at Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli-560045, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru.
2. Smt. Uma Devi, W/o. Late H.N.Sudarshan Reddy, Aged about 63 years, 3. Sri. Bharath Reddy, S/o. Late H.N.Sudarshan Reddy, Aged about 46 years, 4. Sri. S.Santhosh Reddy, S/o. Late H.N.Sudarshan Reddy, Aged about 44 years, 5. Sri. Raghurama Reddy, S/o. Late H.N.Sudarshan Reddy, Aged about 72 years, 6. Smt. Rathnamma, D/o. Late H.V.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 70 years, 7. Smt. Janakamma, D/o. Late H.V.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 68 years, 8. Sri. Anjana Reddy S/o. Late H.V.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 64 years, 9. Smt. Radhamma, D/o. Late H.V.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 59 years, 10. Sri. Janardhana Reddy S/o. Late H.V.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 57 years, R2 to R10 are R/at Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli-560045, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru.
11. Sri. C.Pramod, S/o. Gopalan, Aged about 44 years, R/at No.5, Richmond Road, Bengaluru-560025.
12. Smt. M.P.Padmavathamma, S/o. Late R.Muniswamy Reddy, Aged about 84 years, 13. Sri. M.Raveendranath, S/o. Late R.Muniswamy Reddy, Aged about 64 years, R12 & R13 are R/at No.74, 7th Cross, Victoria Layout, Bengaluru-560047.
14. Smt. Vasundaramma, D/o. Late R.Muniswamy Reddy, Aged about 59 years, R/at No.576, 11 Cross, 8th Main, HAL III Stage, Bengaluru-560075.
15. Sri. Surendra @ Surendranatha, D/o. Late R.Muniswamy Reddy, Aged about 65 years, R/at No.74, 7th Cross, Victoria Layout, Bengaluru-560047.
16. The Government of Karnataka, Represented by Secretary, Revenue Department Vidhanasoudha, Bengaluru-560001.
17. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Represented by its Chairman, Vidhanasoudha, Benagaluru-560001.
…Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Shekara Gowda V., Advocate for C/R1 to R10 Sri. G.Krishna Murthy, Sr. Counsel for Sri. Chandrakanth Patil K., Advocate for R11) This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 28.5.2019 passed I.A.’s in O.S.No.25440/2015 on the file of the LXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, May Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74), allowing the I.A. filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC & rejecting the I.A. filed under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC.
In MFA 6611/2019 BETWEEN Sri. C.Pramod, S/o. Gopalan, Aged about 43 years, R/at No.5, Richmond Road, Bengaluru-560025.
(By Sri. G.Krishna Murthy, Sr. Counsel for Sri. Chandrakanth Patil K., Advocate) …Appellant AND 1. Sri. Ramaiah Reddy, S/o. Late H.P.Papaiah Reddy, Aged about 63 years, R/at Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli-560045, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru.
Represented by his GPA Holder, Sri. H.R.Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. S.Raghurama Reddy, Aged about 46 years, R/at Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli-560045, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru.
2. Smt. Uma Devi, W/o. Late H.N.Sudarshan Reddy, Aged about 62 years, 3. Sri. Bharath Reddy, S/o. Late H.N.Sudarshan Reddy, Aged about 45 years, 4. Sri. S.Santhosh Reddy, S/o. Late H.N.Sudarshan Reddy, Aged about 43 years, 5. Sri. Raghurama Reddy, S/o. Late H.N.Sudarshan Reddy, Aged about 71 years, 6. Smt. Rathnamma, D/o. Late H.V.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 69 years, 7. Smt. Janakamma, D/o. Late H.V.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 67 years, 8. Sri. Anjana Reddy S/o. Late H.V.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 63 years, 9. Smt. Radhamma, D/o. Late H.V.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 56 years, 10. Sri. Janardhana Reddy S/o. Late H.V.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 56 years, R2 to R10 are R/at Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru-560045.
11. Smt. Shanthakumari, W/o. Nagaraj, Aged about 59 years, Residing at No.69, Manjunatha Charana, Garudachar Palya, Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru-560048.
12. Smt. M.P.Padmavathamma, S/o. Late R.Muniswamy Reddy, Aged about 84 years, 13. Sri. M.Raveendranath, S/o. Late R.Muniswamy Reddy, Aged about 63 years, R12 & R13 are R/at No.74, 7th Cross, Victoria Layout, Bengaluru-560047.
14. Smt. Vasundaramma, D/o. Late R.Muniswamy Reddy, Aged about 58 years, R/at No.576, 11 Cross, 8th Main, HAL III Stage, Bengaluru-560075.
15. Sri. Surendra @ Surendranatha, D/o. Late R.Muniswamy Reddy, Aged about 64 years, R/at No.74, 7th Cross, Victoria Layout, Bengaluru-560047.
16. The Government of Karnataka, Represented by Secretary, Revenue Department Vidhanasoudha, Bengaluru-560001.
17. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Represented by its Chairman, Vidhanasoudha, Benagaluru-560001.
(By Sri. Vijaya Shekara Gowda V., Advocate for C/R1 to R10) …Respondents This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 28.5.2019 passed on O.S.No.25440/2015 on the file of the LXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, May Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74), allowing the I.A. filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.
These appeals coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER MFA.No.5189/2019 is filed by defendant no.1 and MFA.No.6611/2019 is filed by defendant no.2. In these two appeals the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the trial court in O.S.No.25440/2015 on I.A.2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been assailed. On perusal of the impugned order it is found that the trial court has just discussed the documents produced by the plaintiff to arrive at a conclusion about existence of prima facie case for granting an order of temporary injunction as prayed for in I.A.2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has failed to consider the documents produced by them. Since the impugned order does not show the consideration of the defendants’ documents, I am of the opinion that this matter needs to be remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration of I.A.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Sri. Vijaya Shekara Gowda V, that he has also sought for reconsideration of trial court order on I.A.No.1 by filing an application for review. In view of this, these two appeals can be allowed for reconsideration for I.A.2. Hence the following :
i. Appeals are allowed.
ii. Impugned order on I.A.2 is set aside.
iii. The trial court is directed to dispose of I.A.2 afresh as early as possible.
SD/- JUDGE sd