CHARU SMITHA Vs. NANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being the plaintiff in her declaratory suit in O.S.No.76/2016 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 2.4.2019 made by the learned III Additional District Judge, Anekal, in her M.A.No.5009/2018 affirming the order dated 3.8.2018 made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Anekal, denying the injunctive relief to her. Notice to respondents No.1 and 2 having been dispensed with, the third respondent having entered caveat through his counsel resist the writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Courts below failed to see that arguably though no injunctive relief as sought for by the petitioner, to avoid the complications that would arise if the suit property is alienated pendente lite, some protective order ought to have been made so that no prejudice would be caused to either side thereby and this aspect of the matter having not been considered constitutes an error apparent on the face of the impugned order warranting indulgence of writ Court, to set the injustice at naught. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Caveator-respondent vehemently contends that both Courts below have concurrently held that no case is made out for the grant of injunctive relief and therefore this Court in exercising its writ jurisdiction may not re-examine the matter as if this writ petition is an appeal; the reasons concurrently assigned by the Courts below do not merit a deeper consideration by this Court especially when the Caveator has brought the property that had fallen to the share of his vendor in a partition that took place prior to the birth of the plaintiff.