SAROJAMMA W/O P NARAYANAPPA Vs. NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by defendant No.3 in O.S. No.314/2017, being aggrieved by an order of restraint against defendant No.6 against disbursal of compensation as per the order passed on I.A. No.1 and also aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. No. 2 whereby an order restraining defendants from alienating or creating any charge over some of the schedule properties has come to be passed.

(2.) The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Court below.

(3.) The primary grievance of defendant No.3 is that the order dated 10.11.2017 came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing as regards defendant No. It is further stated that the aforesaid order was passed only on hearing defendant No.4. The defendant No.3 had filed an affidavit on 06.12.2017 seeking an opportunity to be heard contending that the order passed on 10.11.2017 as regards the defendant No.3 was an ex-parte order and hence before confirming or making absolute the order dated 10.11.2017 an opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the defendant No.