(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE) v. R.T.NAGAR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 39 rr. 1, 2; O. XXXIX rr. 1, 2
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the following order is passed: (i) (ii) The writ petition stands disposed of. The trial court is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39…
Judgment
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA AND:
MR JAI PRAKASH NARAIN S/O LATE R N PRASAD AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.100, 5TH CROSS GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560079.
MR. GAJENDRA SINGH SAHNI AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O MR. S RAJENDER SING R/AT R-8/4, VASANT VIHAR NEW DELHI-110057.
MS AZHAR JABEEN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D/O MR M HUSSAIN SHERIFF R/AT NO.325,OPP BDA COMPLEX R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16010 WP No. 12327 of 2024 (BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K G., ADVOCATE FOR R1: SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVCOATE FOR R3: R2 IS DEAD ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 23.04.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI IN O.S.289/2024 ON I.A.NO.1 AND I.A.NO.2 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO NON- GRANTING OF EX-PARTE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 23.04.2024 passed on IA Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.No.289/2024 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, whereby the trial court refused to grant temporary injunction order.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of money. Along with the plaint, he has also filed applications – IA No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking ex-parte injunction order restraining the defendant No.1 or the agent from changing the nature of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16010 WP No. 12327 of 2024 the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit and IA No.2 directing the defendant No.1 not to alienate the suit schedule property. The trial court refused to grant ex- parte injunction order but only issued summons to the defendants. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.
3. This Court, by order dated 25.04.2024 granted an interim order directing the respondents not to alienate, encumber or create third party rights over the suit schedule property till the next date of hearing. The said interim order is being continued till today. Now, the applications are filed seeking temporary injunction only against respondent No.1/defendant No.1. Even though defendant No.2 before the trial court is dead, the application to bring the legal representatives on record is pending for consideration, there is no difficulty for the trial court to consider IA Nos. 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC since interim injunction is sought only against defendant No.1. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16010 WP No. 12327 of 2024
Operative part
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the following order is passed: (i) (ii) The writ petition stands disposed of. The trial court is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, as expeditiously as possible, not later than eight weeks from today. (iii) The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 permitted to pre-pone the case after intimating the plaintiff. (iv) The interim order granted by this Court on
25.04.2024 shall continue till the disposal of the applications. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 56
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 39 rr. 1, 2; O. XXXIX rr. 1, 2.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.