IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDL.

CITY CIVIL &

SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-32), BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2018
Present:
Sri.Ningouda B.Patil, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Miscellaneous Petition No.264/2018

Plaintiff: Sri.S.B.Susheelamma,
Represented by P.A.Holder,
B.R.Chandra Mohan,
S/o.late C.Ramanna,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.14, 5th Cross,
III Stage, West of Chord Road,
Maruthi Layout,
Basaveshwarnagar,
Bengaluru-560 079.
(By Sri.ASA, Advocate.)
/vs/
Defendants: 1. M.Ramaiah,
S/o.late M.Mutharayappa,
Aged about 64 years,
Residing at Thanisandra Village,
Krishnarajpuram Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.

2. Sri.Srinivas,
S/o.Ramaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at Thanisandra Village,
Krishnarajpuram Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.

3. G.R.Constructions,
By its Director/Manager,
161/A, Teachers Colony
1st Main, 7th Cross,
Near Dayananda Sagar College,
Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bengaluru-560 078.
 2 Misc.Petn.No.264/2018

ORDERS

Petitioner filed this petition under Order-XXXIX,

Rule 2(A) of CPC, seeking appropriate action against
respondents for disobedience of temporary injunction order
dated 23.02.2018 passed on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.1362/2018.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he instituted

original suit bearing O.S.No.1362/2018 against the
respondent before this court for the reliefs of permanent
injunction and others with respect to petition schedule
property. In the said, petitioner sought ex-parte temporary
injunction order against respondents through I.A.No.I; this
court, on 23.2.2018 passed an order restraining the
respondents and anybody on their behalf from interfering
with the suit property; the said order was in force till filing
of objection; petitioner was directed to comply Order-39
Rule-3A of C.P.C.; the said case was adjourned to
27.3.2018.

3. The petitioner contended that, on 11.3.2018, he

and his family members visited the petition schedule
property and came to know about, respondent herein
demolished their compound wall and erected freshly built
compound wall with temporary steel barricades; the said
actions of respondent are against the order of this court;
the order passed on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.1362/2018 was the
order passed against the respondents; respondents
deliberately and willfully disobeyed the said order.
Therefore, he sought action against the respondents.
 3 Misc.Petn.No.264/2018

4. This court issued notices to all the respondents

and the said notices are served on respondents. But
respondents not appeared before the court. Hence
respondents placed ex-parte.

5. The case was posted for evidence. Petitioner lead

both oral and documentary evidence.

6. Perused the petition, documents on record

andevidence led. Heard the counsel for petitioner.

7. The points that which arosed for my consideration

are:

i) Whether the petition deserves to be

allowed?

ii) What Order?

6. My answer to point No.(i) is in affirmative and for

point No.(ii) as per final order for the following
REASONS

7. Point No.(i): The grievance of the petitioner is that,

though this court passed an order on I.A.No.1 in
O.S.No.1362/2018, restraining the respondents and men
on their behalf, not to interfere with the petition schedule
property, respondents after passing of the order and before
27.3.2018, interfered with petition schedule property by
demolishing compound wall and erected new compound
wall with temporary steel barricades. Thereby, willfully and
deliberately disobeyed the order passed by this court.
 4 Misc.Petn.No.264/2018

8. To prove the factual aspect, petitioner adduced the

oral evidence and also produced documentary evidence.
The GPA Holder of petitioner examined as P.W.1 and
documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 are marked. Ex.P.1 is the
certified copy of order sheet, Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of
I.A. and Ex.P.3 are the 10 photographs with CD.

9. P.W.1 clearly and categorically stated in his

affidavit of examination-in-chief that, respondents willfully
and deliberately disobeyed the order passed against them,
and demolished the compound wall and a temporary shed
built in the petition schedule property and further erected a
new compound wall and installed temporary steel
barricades and thereby prevented petitioner physically from
entrance to petition schedule property. He further also
stated that, respondents have no any respect to the law,
not bothered about order of the court.

10. The documentary evidence produced b y the

petitioner also supports the oral evidence of P.W.1. Ex.P.3
discloses that, there was a demolished compound wall and
newly erected one. The documentary evidence corroborates
with oral evidence of petitioner. The evidence adduced and
documents produced by the petitioner are not challenged.
If respondents appeared and have taken a contention that,
they not demolished the compound wall and not put up
new compound wall to the petition schedule property, the
matter would be difficult. But, they have not chosen to
appear before the court and not challenged the petition and
evidence thereon of the petitioner. Thus, this court is of the
opinion that, the petitioner proved the fact that,
 5 Misc.Petn.No.264/2018

respondents willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order

passed on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.1362/2018, and therefore,
they are liable for the action of this court. Hence, petition
of the petitioners deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I
answer point No.(i) in the affirmative.

11. Point No.(ii):- This court granted temporary

injunction order in favour of petitioner, as the subject
matter of the suit was under threat by the respondents.
Keeping the subject matter of the suit in good condition till
disposal of suit is a primary object of a trial court.
Therefore, normally civil courts grant temporary injunction
order, in order to safe guard the property till passing of
final order or decree. Even after passing of such an interim
order, if any party or anybody tried to destroy the property,
such act amounts disobedience to the court, and it will
affect the administration of justice. Thus, the wrong doer is
to be held responsible.

12. In the light of the dictum laid down by Hon’ble

High Court of Karnataka, in the disposal of CRP
No.5565/1990, i.e.,….. “it is clear that the existence of
Order 39 Rule 2A will not be a bar for the exercise of
power under Section 151 CPC to expeditiously enforce
an order of temporary injunction whenever and
wherever disobedience to the same is brought to the
notice of the Court and the same is established. It is
also clear that the very object for which Order 39 Rule
2A has been enacted will be fulfilled by a direction for
the restoration of possession obtained in violation
and/or in disobedience to an order of temporary
 6 Misc.Petn.No.264/2018

injunction. Such a course of action in respect of

temporary injunction becomes all the more necessary,
because temporary injunction is granted in aid of the
final relief sought in the suit and also for the reasons
that the same is subject to the result of the suit.”

The petitioner is entitled to take the benefit of Order

39 Rule 2A of CPC. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER

Petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule

2A of CPC by the petitioner is hereby
allowed.
Call on for steps 9.10.2018.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, transcribed by
her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the
3rd day of October, 2018.)

(Ningouda B.Patil)
XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
 7 Misc.Petn.No.264/2018

ANNEXURE

List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff:

PW.1 : Sri.B.R.Chandra Mohan.

List of documents marked for the Plaintiff:

Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Order sheet in OS

No.1362/2018.
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of IA..
Ex.P.3 10 Photographs with CD

List of Witnesses examined for the defendants:

Nil.

List of documents marked for the defendants:

Nil.

(Ningouda B.Patil)
XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
 8 Misc.Petn.No.264/2018

Orders pronounced in open court

(vide separate orders).
ORDER
Petition filed under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC by the
petitioner is hereby allowed.
Call on for steps 9.10.2018..

XX Addl.C.C & S.J,

Bengaluru.
9 Misc.Petn.No.264/2018
10 Misc.Petn.No.264/2018