IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 6212/2017 (CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI KADARAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAPAPAIAH AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT No.197, 1ST MAIN, ERANAPALYA, SRIGANDHADAKAVAL, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU – 560091 ... APPELLANT [BY SRI M.G.KUMAR, ADV.] AND:
SMT.SHOBHA G., W/O MOHAN, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O No.641, 12TH CROSS, EAST WEST COLLEGE ROAD, BHARATNAGAR, ANJANA NAGAR BENGALUR – 560091 …RESPONDENT [BY SMT.INDUMATHI S.R., ADV.) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2017 PASSED ON I.A.No.1 IN O.S.No.25792/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, XXVI A.C.C. AND S.JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU, ISSUING EX-PARTE T.I. AS PRAYED FOR IN I.A.No.1 AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, TILL THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is listed to hear IA No.2/2017 filed by the respondent seeking vacating of stay granted by this court. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, appeal is heard finally.
2. Appellant herein is defendant in O.S.No.25792/2017. That suit has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the appellant-defendant. Along with the plaint, an application for seeking an ex parte order of temporary injunction was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC]. The trial court, by impugned order dated 14.7.2017, has granted the ex parte order of temporary injunction against the defendant-appellant herein. Being aggrieved by that order, appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. This Court by the impugned order dated 9.8.2017 has granted interim stay of the impugned order, initially for a period of four weeks, which has been subsequently extended. Hence, application has been filed seeking vacation of the order of stay granted by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
5. What emerges from the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties is the fact that on account of the interim stay granted by this Court, the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC by the respondent-plaintiff has not been taken up for hearing. While the respondent’s counsel submits that the ex parte order of temporary injunction was rightly granted by the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant submits that such an order could not have been granted without assigning reasons and by not complying with the conditions mentioned under Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the CPC.
6. In the circumstances, what emerges is the fact that the application has not yet been taken up for hearing by the trial Court. Therefore, while directing both parties to maintain status quo, the trial Court is directed to hear and dispose of the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in accordance with law.
7. The grievance of the respondent’s counsel is that the appellant herein would not submit arguments in time. There can be no such grievance ventilated as the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious and speedy disposal of the application on or before 7.11.2017.
8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this appeal stands disposed.
9. IA No.2/2017 also stands disposed in the aforesaid terms.
It is reiterated that both the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the application within the aforesaid timeframe.
AN/-
Sd/-
JUDGE