SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA Vs. SRI H.B. BHARATH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 9.2.2012 passed on I.A. No. 2 in O.S. No. 144/2011 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ramanagara [hereinafter called as 'Trial Court' for short] and the order dated 26.9.2013 passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, at Kanakapura, Ramanagara District [hereinafter called as 'Lower Appellate Court' for short]. The parties are referred according to their ranking before the trial Court. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant seeking for a decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 4.2.2010 executed by him with the defendant for sale of two items of properties in Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that he has paid a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/ - by way of cash and cheque for purchasing the suit schedule properties by means of an agreement and that the total price for the said land agreed between the parties is Rs. 1,30,00,000/ -. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant has thereafter applied for conversion of suit schedule property and further applied for extraction of granite deposit. Apprehending that the defendant would not honour the agreement with the plaintiff, he has filed the suit before the trial Court. Along with the said suit he has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for an injunction restraining the defendant from extracting, removing and transporting the black granite deposit from the suit schedule property until the disposal of the suit. After notifying the suit to the defendant, the trial Court has passed an order dated 9.2.2012 restraining the defendant from extracting, removing and transporting the black granite deposit situated in the suit schedule property by allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial Court, the defendant approached the Lower Appellate Court and the Lower Appellate Court by order impugned in this case in M.A. No. 6/2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. It is these orders, which are challenged by the petitioner/defendant in this writ petition.

(3.) SRI M.R. Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the trial Court has erred in granting an Interim Order of Injunction against the defendant and that the ingredients of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC have not been followed by the trial Court. In support of the same, he has cited the following rulings reported in: -