SRI. B. JAYARAMAIH Vs. SMT. GOWRAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri. S.V. Ganesh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri. C.G. Gopalaswamy, learned advocate for the 1st respondent. Issuance of notice to respondents 2 to 10 who are defendants in the suit, stands dispensed with, since they are only formal parties to this writ petition. Perused the writ petition record.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 - plaintiff has filed O.S. 1599/12 on 10.12.12 in the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District to pass a decree of partition and put her in separate possession and enjoyment of her 1/6th share by holding the documents styled as sale deed dated 9.5.1984, sale deed dated 14.5.1999 registered as document No. 1028/99 -2000 in respect of item No. 2 of the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendants 7 & 8 and the documents styled as sale deed registered in respect of item No. 3 of suit schedule properties in favour of the defendants 9 & 10 as not binding on her and grant consequential reliefs. Along with the suit, I.A. 1/12 was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating suit property or creating any kind of encumbrance during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner is the 1st defendant in the suit. Learned Trial Judge on 13.12.12 considered I.As. 1 & 2. On I.A. 2 it was opined that it is necessary to issue notice to defendants before passing any interim order. However, order of temporary injunction as prayed in I.A. 1 was ordered to be issued by directing the plaintiff to comply with the requirement under the proviso of Rule 3 of Order 39 of CPC. The suit summons and emergent notice of I.A. II was ordered to be issued returnable by 21.01.13. However, on 14.12.12, the Office of the Trial Court having verified and having noticed that a caveat had been filed by defendant No. 1, put up a submission note which reads as under:

(3.) LEARNED Trial Judge while passing the order on I.A. 1 has not kept in view the provision under Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC. Reasons which enabled him to pass an order of temporary injunction have not been recorded. The said provision mandates the Trial Court to record reasons when temporary injunction is granted exparte. Learned Trial Judge ought to have kept in view the ratio of law enunciated by the Apex Court, in the following decisions: