SRI SADANANDA SHETTY v. SMT BABY SHEDTHI
Case at a glance
- Bench
- LALITHA KANNEGANTI
- Neutral citation
- 2025:KHC:3291
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 53189 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI SADANANDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE THIMMAPPA SHETTY, MANIKANA NILAYA KANYANA, POST CHARA VILLAGE 576112 KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
SMT BABY SHEDTHI AGED 65 YEARS W/O NARASIMHA SHETTY
SMT. SUGUNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY BOTH ARE R/AT HUTHURKE POST CHARA VILLAGE 576112 KARKALA TALUK. MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. H.C. SHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SUGUNA SHEDTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA IN M.A.NO.5/2018 (ANNEXURE-R) AND ETC. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3291 WP No. 53189 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in M.A.No.5/2018 dated
09.10.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, whereby the Appellate Court had reversed the findings of the Trial Court and refused to grant interim injunction to the plaintiff.
Operative part
2. The petitioner, who had filed a suit for injunction, had filed I.A.No.2 seeking injunction. The Trial Court had granted injunction and aggrieved thereby, the defendants have filed MA.No.5/2018. By order dated 09.10.2018, the Appellate Court had set aside the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the I.A. filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. In the present writ petition, no interim order is granted by this Court. Considering the order in the M.A. that is of the year 2018, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter with regard to the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court. As this is a suit for bare - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3291 WP No. 53189 of 2018 injunction filed in the year 2018, this Court is of the view that a direction to disposed of the case expeditiously will serve the purpose. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Trial Court to dispose of the pending suit as expeditiously as possible. ii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views on the merits of the matter. iii. All I.As., in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India — art. 227.
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.