IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5891 OF 2017 (CPC) BETWEEN 1. Sri. Chikkaramaiah Reddy, S/o. Yallappa Reddy, Aged about 78 years.
2. Sri. M.C.Mukunda S/o. Chikkaramaiah Reddy, Aged about 53 years Occu: Private Service 3. Sri. C.Ramesh S/o. Chikkaramaiah Reddy, Aged about 51 years.
4. Sri. C.Babu Reddy S/o. Chikkaramaiah Reddy, Aged about 49 years.
5. Smt. C.Anuradha W/o. late Maruthi D/o. Chikkaramaiah Reddy Aged about 47 years All residing at : Raghavendra Electricals Property Bearing No.2 Srinivas Temple Road, 2nd Main, Maruthi Nagar, Madivala Extension (formed in Sy.No.84-1-C of Tavarkere) Bangalore.
(By Sri. Ranga Ramu V., Advocate) AND 1. S.R.Annaiah Reddy, S/o. late Ramaswamy Reddy, Aged about 65 years Residing at No.85/2, 2nd Main, 5th Cross, Maruthi Nagar, Madivala, Bangalore.
2. Mrs. Geetha W/o. late S.R.Bala Reddy, Aged major No.541, ‘A’ Main Road, 16th Main, 3rd Cross, HSR 6th Sector, Bangalore.
3. S.R.Ramu Aged major, S/o. late Ramaswamy Reddy, 4. S.R.Prakash, Aged major S/o. late Ramaswamy Reddy, 5. S.R.Manjunath Aged major S/o. late Ramaswamy Reddy, …Appellants Defendants No.3,4,5 are Residing at: No.78/1, 1st Main, S.G.Palya, Bangalore-27.
6. S.R.Pushpa Aged major S/o. Late Ramaswamy Reddy, Lalitha Nilaya, Seetharama Palya Mahadevapura Post Bangalore 7. S.R.Nirmala, D/o. Late Ramaswamy Reddy, Srinivasa Temple Road, Maruthi Nagar, Bangalore.
8. S.R.Ratnamma, Aged major No.18/3, Ground Floor, 12th Cross, Wilson Garden Bangalore-560027.
9. S.R.Padma Aged major W/o. Vijayaraghav Reddy No.40/A, 100ft Road, 4th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore.
10. S.R.Shamala Aged major #103/08, 2nd Main, 9th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-27.
(By Sri. Naik N.R., Advocate for C/R1) …Respondents This MFA filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC., against the order dated 14.07.2017 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.7060/2012 on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, allowing I.A.No.6 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The plaintiffs 1 to 5 in O.S.No.7060/2012 on the file of the 29th Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, have preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 14.07.2017 on I.A.No.6 filed under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. This application was filed by the 1st defendant/respondent seeking an order of temporary injunction against the plaintiffs restraining them from inducting a 3rd party into the suit property. The said application was allowed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant now submits that already there was an order of status quo binding both the parties and the said order was passed on 16.10.2015. There was no need to grant an order of temporary injunction again. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that violating the order of status quo, the plaintiffs/appellants are trying to induct 3rd party into the suit property and therefore the 1st respondent was constrained to file the present application for temporary injunction.
3. The appellants’ counsel now submits that the plaintiffs/appellants have no intention to lease or let out the suit property to anybody. So on the said submission, I do not think that a considered order should be passed. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is placed on record. It is directed that both the parties should maintain status quo as ordered by the trial court on the earlier occasion, without leasing or letting out the suit property.
With the above observations, appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE sd