Puravankara Ltd vs. H. Venkataswamy Reddy
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Fixed Date by Court
Before:
Hon'ble M.M. Sundresh, Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal
Stage:
AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
Leave Granted & Disposed off
Listed On:
28 Apr 2025
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Interlocutory Applications:
92333/2018,92334/2018,
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13124 OF 2018)
M/S. PURAVANKARA LTD. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
H. VENKATASWAMY REDDY & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
-
- Leave granted.
-
- We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties.
-
- The appellant before us is defendant no.4, in a suit filed by respondent nos. 1 to 4, for declaration of title & recovery of possession with respect to the suit property, and permanent injunction as against the defendants.
-
- In the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs sought temporary injunction as against the defendant nos. 3 to 7, on alienating or creating any encumbrance over the suit property during the pendency of the proceedings. The same was granted by the Trial Court, vide order dated 02.06.2016 and confirmed by the High Court vide order dated 21.06.2016, in an appeal preferred by the present appellant.
- Subsequently, the present appellant filed an
1
application before the Trial Court, praying for setting aside of the temporary injunction granted earlier; citing change in circumstances. Subsequent to the filing of the application, some of the parties executed 'deed of confirmation/affirmation' in favour of the appellant, which were brought to the notice of the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court dismissed the application, on the ground that the share of present respondent no.1 is yet to be decided. Vide the impugned order, the High Court has upheld the same.
-
- It seems to us that the impugned order requires interference since out of the shares of the alleged five shareholders of the suit property, the appellant has purchased the shares of four shareholders, which leaves only the share of the contesting respondent no.1 (Plaintiff no.1 in the suit).
-
- Taking note of the aforesaid subsequent development, the High Court ought, to have set aside the temporary injunction granted earlier, taking note of the aforesaid change in circumstances. Hence, we modify the impugned order, to the effect that one flat constructed by the appellant shall not be alienated, till the disposal of the suit.
-
- Accordingly, the interim injunction granted earlier by the Trial Court, vide order dated 02.06.2016, stands vacated. The amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty
2
Lakhs) deposited by the appellant shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant, along with the interest accrued. This arrangement is obviously subject to the preliminary decree that will be passed by the Trial Court.
-
- Taking into consideration the limited scope involved, we request the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the trial and conclude the same within nine months from today.
-
- The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
-
- Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
..................J. [ M.M. SUNDRESH ]
..................J. [ RAJESH BINDAL ]
NEW DELHI; 28th APRIL 2025.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 13124/2018
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-04-2018 in MFA No. 1825/2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]
M/S. PURAVANKARA LTD. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
H. VENKATASWAMY REDDY & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 92334/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 92333/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 28-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv. Mr. Joshua Samuel, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shankare Gowda, Adv.
Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order, which is placed on the file.
(POOJA SHARMA) (POONAM VAID)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
4