IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.1461 OF 2014 (CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI N.RAJA REDDY, S/O.LATE SRI.K.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.104, 9TH CROSS, NEAR CAUVERY GNANA MITHRA SCHOOL, KAVERAPPA LAYOUT, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560037.
2. SRI N.KESHAV REDDY, S/O LATE SRI.K.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2/5, 9TH CROSS, NEAR CAUVERY GNANA MITHRA SCHOOL, KAVERAPPA LAYOUT, MARTHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560037. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.OMPRAKASH J, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI B.S.SURENDRANATH, S/O LATE SRI B.SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2288, 14TH MAIN ROAD, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560037.
2. SMT.ASHWATHAMMA, W/O LATE SRI K.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1/5, 9TH CROSS, NEAR CAUVERY GNANA MITHRA SCHOOL, KAVERAPPA LAYOUT, MARTHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560037.
3. SRI N.JAYARAMA REDDY @ JAYANNA REDDY, S/O LATE SRI K.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1/5, 9TH CROSS, NEAR CAUVERY GNANA MITHRA SCHOOL, KAVERAPPA LAYOUT, MARTHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560037.
4. SRI N.SRINIVAS REDDY, S/O LATE SRI K.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.96, 9TH CROSS, NEAR CAUVERY GNANA MITHRA SCHOOL, KAVERAPPA LAYOUT, MARTHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560037.
5. SMT.RADHA, D/O LATE SRI K.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1/5, 9TH CROSS, NEAR CAUVERY GNANA MITHRA SCHOOL, KAVERAPPA LAYOUT, MARTHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560037. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.B.SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 TO R5 SERVED) **** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2014 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.724/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 R. 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 5 for setting aside the order dated 07.01.2014 passed on I.A. No.II in O.S. No.724/2013 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District.
2. In the present case, on issuance of notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel in 2014. Thereafter, the matter had come up for admission on 14.12.2018. Since there was no representation by the counsel for the appellants, the office was directed to list this appeal after two weeks. On 08.01.2019, the matter had come up for hearing. But, there was no representation by the appellants. As such, two weeks time was granted. On 23.01.2019, the matter was posted for admission, but there was no representation by the counsel for the appellants. Therefore, as a final chance, this matter was ordered to be listed in the first week of February 2019.
3. Even on this day, the counsel for the appellants is absent.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respondents.
5. It is the case of the appellants that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants. In the said suit, the plaintiffs had filed I.A. No.II under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction and the defendants had filed I.A.
No.V under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC for vacating temporary injunction. On hearing the parties, I.A. No.II filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and I.A. No.V filed by the defendants was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred.
6. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 07.01.2014 passed in O.S. No.724/2013 discloses that I.A. No.II filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is allowed and I.A. No.V filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC is rejected. But in the present appeal, the relief claimed is only for setting aside the order passed on I.A. No.II only. There is no prayer as far as the order passed on I.A. No.V is concerned.
7. The order passed on I.A. No.II is only to restrain the defendants/appellants from alienating the suit schedule property or creating any encumbrance on the said property. No grounds are made out to prove that the order dated 07.01.2014 on I.A. No.II is erroneous and the same requires to be set aside.
8. Thus, there are no valid grounds to admit the appeal. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The miscellaneous first appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ