Padmavathi Vs.
Krishna Murthy Rao Sindhe M. & Ors. [2008] INSC 1989 (20 November 2008)
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6936 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)
No.25130/2005) Padmavathi ...Appellant Versus Krishna Murthy Rao ...Respondents
Sindhe M. & Ors.
With Contpt.
Ptn.(C)No.145/2006 in SLP(C)No.25130/2005 O R D E R Leave granted.
This appeal is
directed against a judgment and order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First Appeal NO.8349/2005 whereby
and where under the order of injunction dated 30.8.2005 passed by the XIII
Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hill Unit, Bangalore in O.S.No.16152/2005,
was set aside.
In view of the order
proposed to be passed by us, it is not necessary to notice the fact of the
matter in great detail.
Suffice it to say
that one J.K. Narayana Swamy was the owner of the property. Whereas the
plaintiff-appellant claims her right, title and interest in the said property
as the widow of said Shri J.K.Narayana Swarmy; the defendants- respondents
claim themselves to be the assignees in respect -of the said property from one
N. Jayalakshmi, said to be the adopted daughter of J.K. Narayana in whose
favour a Will was executed by him.
A suit was filed in
the year 2005. Defendants-respondents filed written statements in the said suit
on or about 15.4.2005. According to them by that time major portion of the
construction was completed. However, the learned trial Judge granted an
injunction on 30.8.2005 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant restraining the
defendants-respondents from encroaching or interfering or putting up any
construction in any portion of IA-I schedule property in any manner pending
disposal of the suit.
However, a
miscellaneous first appeal was filed there against and an order of stay of the
operation of the said order was passed by the High Court.
According to the
defendants-respondents they raised further constructions pursuant thereto and
in furtherance thereof. The impugned order has been passed setting aside the
order of the trial Court.
This Court by an
order dated 16.12.2005 directed the parties to maintain Status-quo. Inter-alia,
on the premise that the defendants-respondents have violated the said order, a
contempt petition has also been filed.
Upon hearing learned
counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in view of the fact that
the said interim -2- order of Status-quo has been continuing for a longtime,
interest of justice would be subserved if the same is directed to continue with
a further direction to the learned trial Judge to hear out the suit itself and
dispose it of as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months
from the date of communication of this order.
So far as application
for initiating proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil
Procedure for alleged violation of the said order of status-quo dated
16.12.2005 is concerned, we direct that the said question may be considered by
the learned trial Judge along with the hearing of the suit, so that the
contention of the respondents-defendants that they had completed almost the
entire construction before the order of status-quo was passed on 15.4.2005 as
also the allegation of the appellant- plaintiff that in fact the respondents-defendants
have raised the construction after the order of status-quo, can be considered
by the learned trial Judge on the basis of the materials which may be brought
on record by the parties thereto.
It goes without
saying that any consequential order, in the event, it is found that the order
of this Court has been violated, may be passed by the trial Court itself.
Records of the
contempt proceeding may be transmitted to the learned trial Judge with the
counter affidavit.
-3- With the
aforementioned directions and observations, the appeal and the contempt
petitions are disposed of.
......................J.
[S.B. SINHA] .
....................J
[ CYRIAC JOSEPH ]
New
Delhi,
November
20, 2008.
Back
Pages: 1 2
