NAM ESTATE PVT , LTD Vs. N A ANJINAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed impugning the common order dated 10.04.2017 in O.S. No.188/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J. M. F. C., Devanahalli, (for short 'learned Civil Court'). The learned Civil Court by the impugned common order has allowed two applications viz., IA Nos.2 and 4 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff respondent for injunction restraining the defendants, including the appellants in these appeals, from alienating or changing the nature of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. The operative portion of the impugned Common order reads thus:

(2.) The plaintiff respondent has filed this suit in O.S.No.188/2016 inter alia for declaration that different sale deeds concluded by the parties to the suit, over a long period of time, for different parcels of lands in Sy.No.47 situated at Nagamangala Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk are null and void. The plaintiff/respondent's essential case is that the plaintiff/respondent has retained an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land (suit schedule properties) in Sy.No.47 situated at Nagamangala Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. But, the defendants (including the appellants) have managed to secure the revenue entries for the land in Sy.No.47 situated at Nagamangala Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk excluding the plaintiff/respondent though he continues to retain the ownership and possession of the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land (suit schedule properties). The appellants defendant Nos.24 to 26 contested the suit. They admitted certain plaint averments as regards the original ownership and later transfers. But, they denied the plaintiff/respondent's case that he had retained the ownership and possession of 1 acre 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.47 situated at Nagamangala Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk as described in the plaint schedule. The learned Civil Court by the impugned order has allowed both the applications as notedin the context of these rival submissions.

(3.) Sri K. G. Raghavan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed against the sustainability of the impugned order, without submitting on the relative merits of the applications and the objections thereto, on the short ground that the impugned order is not only a cryptic, but also lacks appreciation of relevant facts and reasoning. A judicial order will have to, even if it is on an interim application, comply with the provisions of Order XX Rule 4 and Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned order comprises of three parts apart from its conclusion in paragraph 14: extracts of the plaintiff/respondent's case and of the appellant defendants' case, a reference to the documents relied upon by both the parties, and listing of the decisions relied by the contesting parties.