Professional Documents
Culture Documents
P RESENT
AND
W.P.No.58906/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SHAKUNTHALAMMA
W/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SMT.GIRIJA
W/O VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
3. SMT.SUNITHA
W/O LATE SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2
AND:
1. SMT.KANTHAMMA,
W/O LATE BHEEMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
2. SRI.RAMANJANEYA,
S/O BHEMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR.
3. SRI SHIVASHANKARAPPA
S/O SEEBEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST & BUSINESSMAN,
TAGARANAHATTY VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE 577 501 RESPONDENTS
W.P.NO.16412/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SANNERAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2. THIMMANNA
S/O LATE THIMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
3. JAYANNA
S/O LATE THIMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
4. CHANDRANNA
S/O LATE THIMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
AND:
1. BASAVARAJAIAH
S/O MATADA VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
2. ERAIAH
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
3. SHANTHAIAH
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4. SMT. SIDDAMMA
W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
5. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O KOTRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
6. M.C. NAGARAJAIAH
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
7. M.C. THIPPESWAMY
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
8. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
D/O MATADA VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
9. M.C. SIDDAIAH
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
5
12. MANJANNA
S/O LATE M.C. RUDRAMUNI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
13. SANTHOSH
S/O LATE M.C. RUDRAMUNI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
ORDER
the 1st defendant too filed an I.A. U/o XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
item No.1 of the suit schedule. The trial Court after hearing the
the cases falling under Clause (b) and (c) thereof. The civil court
therefore the Court could not have granted the said relief in
M.A.16/2013.
that when the case of the defendant does not fall U/o XXXIX Rule
powers, the Court could exercise the same to grant the relief and
Code).
11
reads as under:
comes before the Court, it has to examine the facts and ascertain
appropriate relief.
pertinent to point out at this juncture itself that clause (c) Rule 1
w.e.f. 01.02.1977.
(Underlining by us)
his creditors who include the plaintiff also. The third situation is
property.
15
a view to render the decree that may be passed in the suit useless
further orders.
party to the suit in Rule 1(a) of order XXXIX CPC but the same is
1 of order XXXIX CPC make it clear that the Court can grant an
plaintiff threatens and also not used the words any party to the
scope of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC in the
KAR 161 has pointed out the distinction between them in the
following words:
Court on being satisfied that a case is made out for grant of such
19. The next point would be, when the defendant is not
falling U/o XXXIX rule 1 clause (c) CPC whether the Court could
the absence of specific provision the court can exercise its power
U/s 151 of the Code and grant relief to the defendant or any party
Manohar Lal Chopra vs- Rai Bahadur Rao Raj Seth Hiralal
which is as below:
18 it is held as under:
Limited and others, AIR 1983 SC 1272 dealing with the power
27
under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act and after referring to
though the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, the Court
jurisdiction, even though the matter does not fall under Order
provision.
28. The instant case would fall U/o XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC
covered U/o XXXIX rule 1 and 2 CPC then the court could in
injunction.
29
Sulu Bai & Others (1975) 1 KLJ 96, is relied upon. This was a
that:
Order XXXIX Rule 1(c) was not in the statute book as on the date
Rule 1 and 2 of CPC are the words cause of action referred to.
that the judgments on the point do not lay down the correct law,
31
1(b) and (c) is not noticed. Therefore, we are of the view that,
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE