01Facts
The appellant filed a miscellaneous first appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC challenging the order dated 12 April 2022, by which the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, sitting at Chintamani, allowed the respondents’ application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in R.A. No. 98 of 2018.
pp. 6–7At the hearing, counsel informed the High Court that the regular appeal before the District Court had since been disposed of.
p. 702Issues
i.Whether the miscellaneous first appeal remained for consideration after the underlying regular appeal had been disposed of.
p. 703Law Applied
The appeal was brought under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC against an order granting temporary injunctive relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
p. 6The Court did not interpret or apply the substantive requirements of those provisions; it dismissed the appeal as infructuous after being informed that the underlying regular appeal had been disposed of.
p. 704Reasoning
The Court relied on the parties’ counsel’s submission that the regular appeal had been disposed of.
p. 7In light of that development, it treated the challenge to the interlocutory order as no longer requiring consideration and did not examine the merits of the injunction order.
p. 705Holding
The Court held that the miscellaneous first appeal had become infructuous and dismissed it accordingly.
p. 7It also held that any pending interlocutory applications did not survive for consideration and had become insignificant.
p. 7Original Court PDF
SRI VENKATARAYAPPAvsSRI M OBANNA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
