" 'EEGU-R HC§B_LI,»_ BANGALORE'?-O'U.TH TALUK. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 11" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2O1G~T,'f"--«.:,"".,_ BEFORE THE HON'8LE MR. IUSTICE A.N. IIENUGOIPA'L,A'=GOYvO_A. WRIT PETITION NO.315o9/i»:<o1bf G(*GMi:CPC.)%,v BETWEEN: SMT. AJAYAMARI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ., : W/O AROGYANATHAN @ ALTIN,__ I BEGUR VILLAGE & HOBL1, BANGALORE SOUTH,TAL.UK,...-- . ' (BY SRI M.v.CHANDI;j::A' Sz+E:;--<AP,A"REDDY',' AIM) AND: PAPARAJU _ AGED ABOUT45 TYEARS, ' " S/O LATE RAYAPPA, " RESIDENT OE ANANTHA f2JA"(3A_I'~1 LAYOUT, ELECTRONIC CITY_ POST, HUSKUR GATE ' ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT
THIS ‘vII1R’IT’A1’PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND
227 O-T-.__ THE CONSTITUTION OE INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
‘ORDER DATED 31″ JULY 2009 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN
I’-«i;f~.__O’;»S.NO,68.3;”2OO€) PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
‘ ,;IR;’DCN.,_) AS PER ANNExURE–D AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE
ORDER “DATED 19*” AUGUST 2010 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN
‘”-._M.A.éNO.95/2009 AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2
G
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B GRANTENG INTERIM ENJUNCTION
AS PRAYED FOR,
THIS PETETEON COMING ON FOR PRELIMENARY HEARENG
IN ‘8’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
QRDER
Petitioner has filed O.S.No.683/2009 in the Co,.uirl;i’o_f
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.,), Bangalore Rural District,
against the respondent for the relief
injunction in respect of property desc,ri.bevd’4′–,i,n”:étheéi’plaiiinvtaaat
schedule. By filing written ,sta_l;emeht_”‘to
respondent has denied the claim of=,tVhe_Vpetit’i’oner’:tothe suit
property. LA No.1 was» :.p_et’itio_ner vseevking an
order of temporaryAi_njuncti.0.n:T’_to defendant from
interfering withj’: e-niéoyment of suit
property by filed statement
of objections 22,_–o*}T.V2oo9. The trial court
upon consviidefiratiion made on behalf of the
FeSDeCtl.\;e _parties their learned advocates and upon
consicferattcsn “ofA_theére’cord of the suit, has held that, the
p’e–titi.o.nei*i-..’has”no-tymade out a prima facie case for grant of
order t_empjorary injunction and as a result, LA No.1
\
/,1
having found to be devoid of merit, was rejected by.___an
order dated 31.07.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the
filed Misc.Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) ”
learned District Judge, Bangalore Rural »D.i«strict,_v,Balingaiore,7, it
upon consideration of the rival conte”‘ntio.ns’an:d–the
has concurred with the findingV’o_f,4″‘t.h%e learned.VVtriial”‘:;iii’dge: in
the order passed on LA l\£,.o.1 an;d—–ans”‘va result, has..d.is§missed
the appeal. Challenging judgment of
the courts below, t_h”e.__plai.n’t’il”f ‘lfgs ‘:fi*le;d.V_tl”lis«~}.+l:V’r’it petition.
2. Lé.arne_’d:.w_ -the; petitioner contended
that, the.V’hco’urtsrvliveloiri:halfe.:’_’not considered the case of the
petitionerthe correfctlllperspective and that the material
placed on reco’rd.not”-been correctly appreciated and the
._f’JVfi’n.riin§.s’C’recorded éth’e”impugned order and the judgment
are Iillegal.
have perused the writ petition record.
V. The point for consideration is:
i
«ii
Whether any interference with the impugned.
judgment and order, is called for? ” T
5. The grant of interlocutory injunctions~:fi’s7″sniff’? M
exercise of discretionary power of the Court. :t.r.i’-a_lxCo’_u,rt’V..
upon consideration of the case of the.Vpa.r’ti’es,
the finding that, the plaintiff haVs–.n:ot_rnade.outVyyahv-.pripfia’~’fa:cie
case for grant of temporary injun–et”i’o–n}”-Tfhe.appellate court
should not interfere with put under
challenge by sub.st_i:t’u.ttng the appellate
cou rt finds €.t’l’:et!V been exercised
arbitrarily,cap’ric:i’ou’E:!;y.,_ where the trial court
has ignored the “of law regulating the grant
or refusal of*~ti._nte.r|ocutoryorrder. The appellate court may
_._not re.–«§asse:;s the ‘material and seek to reach a conclusion
A*o_iffer~ent one reached by the court below, if the
trial court was reasonably possible on
the ma’te.ri’a:lVs’p’iVaced on record by the parties.
A perusal of the record would show that, the
. court by taking into consideration the case of the
E
petitioner, has considered the record placed by her v_i.s___–a–
vis, the record placed by the respondent and has heifcl’
the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case-to ”
order of temporary injunction in ..res»pe,ct .Vpla_i’nt”.., if
schedule property in her favour.
consideration of the record, has–..::ii€2l.d th.at.,__ has
not made out a prima facie case,.a-nVcl”,’vthat,’the fi’r1vdi.ngs of the
trial court are justified. findings by the
courts beiow wi.vtif,_::–r;ggar§;f”‘t:Q~not having a
prima facie case} facie case, there
cannot be..any’V”baiaV’i*1:;:;e_ nor irreparable loss
and injury to the courts below have
noticed the”‘c_ahse Vof.’4’the.:’::;i2’iaintiff and have prima facie
4,..,appreci.ated~ the V’recor_d_s_:produced by her, I am unable to
“=find:V’merit,:in submission that the impugned order and
the~.judgm’en’t-._are”fperverse and illegal. It is not a case
wherein the “courts have omitted from consideration any
rn.ateriai document placed on record. The courts beiow in
..,e_.xércise: of their discretionary jurisdiction, upon adverting to
*4′..t’he”record, have held that, the plaintiff has failed to make
/77′