01Facts
The appellant challenged an order dated 12 April 2022 by which the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, sitting at Chintamani, allowed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in Regular Appeal No. 98 of 2018.
pp. 6–7The appeal to the High Court was filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. At the hearing, counsel informed the Court that the Regular Appeal had been disposed of.
pp. 6–702Issues
i.1. 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 interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
p. 6The Court applied the procedural principle that an appeal concerning interim relief becomes infructuous when the underlying proceeding has been disposed of. No precedent was cited.
p. 704Reasoning
The appeal concerned an interim order made in the Regular Appeal.
p. 7Since both sides’ counsel informed the Court that the Regular Appeal had been disposed of, the interim-order appeal no longer survived for consideration.
p. 705Holding
The Court dismissed the miscellaneous first appeal as infructuous.
p. 7It also held that any pending interlocutory applications did not survive 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
