IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.1349/2019(GM-CPC) 1. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O SRI. P. NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.1/2, 14TH CROSS, NRI LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 043.
2. SMT. SHASHIKALA BALAJI, W/O R. BALAJI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.23, SRINIKETHAN 9TH A MAIN ROAD, NRI LAYOUT, KALKERE, BANGALORE 560 043.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI JAYKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI HARISH V. S., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. M VENKATARAMA REDDY, S/O MESTRAPPA RESSY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.36, 80 FEET ROAD, HENNUR ROAD, H.B.R LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 084.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) … THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 31ST ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CCH-14 ON I.A.NO.3/2018 IN O.S.NO. 7419/2018 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-P.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This Court by the order dated 21.3.2019 had observed that since the interim order of status quo granted earlier on 18.3.2019 was not continued, no interim order was existing as on that day.
2. The trial Court by the order dated 10.10.2018 granted an order of exparte temporary injunction. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be complied on 11.10.2018 and an affidavit of compliance was also filed to that effect by the plaintiff. The defendants filed an application on 25.10.2018 to advance the case from 13.11.2018 to 25.10.2018. On that day, learned Counsel for the defendants-petitioners filed an application for vacating exparte temporary injunction granted earlier. At the instance of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff for filing objections, the case was adjourned to 26.10.2018 on which date, the plaintiff- respondent filed an application for extension of interim order and objections to I.A.1. The defendants-petitioners also filed written statement.
3. The learned Judge in all fairness ought to have decided the I.A. on merits as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure instead of adjourning the matter. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that though injunction was granted on 10.10.2018, the defendants-petitioners sold the properties in favour of Sri V.G. Sivaprakash on 11.10.2018 and without disclosing the said fact had filed the written statement on 26.10.2018. The purchasers of the said properties also filed O.S.No.7577/2018 and 7581/2018 for permanent injunction. The application for temporary injunction filed also came to be rejected on 2.11.2018. Thereafter B. Ramana Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy, purchased the properties from the present petitioners on 22.11.2018. That is how the matter is stalled.
4. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners-defendants are directed to file an application for advancement before the trial Court and argue the case on the application. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent- plaintiff, the arguments on his side has been completed. If that is so, he can reply, if any. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to consider the objections and arguments on both sides and decide the case on merits on the application for temporary injunction in accordance with law as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. The petitioners-defendants can file an application for grant of interim order and the trial Court shall consider the application for temporary injunction after hearing both the parties within 15 days i.e., before Summer Vacation, 2019.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is kept in abeyance till the trial Court disposes of the application.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-