C. Gopala @ C. Gopala Reddy vs M. Papanna
2021 Latest Caselaw 279 Kant

                            1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

              M.F.A.NO.1867 OF 2016 (CPC)

BETWEEN
1.     C. GOPALA @ C. GOPALA REDDY
      (WRONGLY STATED IN THE CAUSE TITLE AS C. GOPALA),
      SON OF LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY,
      AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
2.    G. SURESH REDDY
      SON OF C. GOPALA REDDY,
      AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
      BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 2143-B,
      6TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD, HAL 2ND STAGE,
      KODIHALLI, BANGALORE-560 008.
                                             ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.S.V.GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

M. PAPANNA
SON OF LATE MUNI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1061/K(12),
21ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD "E" CROSS,
BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, 1ST PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 076.
                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SHAILASHREE, ADVOCATE)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) OF THE
CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 24.02.2016 PASSED ON MISC.
NO. 938/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 17TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING PETITION FILED
UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2A R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC.
                                2



     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the order dated

24.02.2016 passed in Misc.No.938/2014, whereby the trial

court allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein under

Order 39 Rule-2A r/w Section 151 CPC and consequently,

directed the appellants to be detained in civil prison for a

period of 14 days for violating and disobeying the order of

status-quo dated 04.01.2007 passed by the trial court in

O.S.No.8420/2006.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellants, learned

counsel for respondent and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record indicates that it is not in

dispute that the aforesaid Misc.No.938/2014 was filed by the

respondent-plaintiff in O.S.No.8420/2006 alleging that the

appellants had committed disobedience and contempt of the

order of status-quo passed by the trial court.

4. It transpires that during the pendency of the said

proceedings, the appellants had filed W.P.Nos.2356-58/2015

& 2760/2015 for permission to recall the witness of the

respondent for cross-examination. While allowing the said

request made by the appellants herein, this Court directed the

appellants herein to demolish the compound wall within two

days and report the same to the court below. Accordingly, the

wall was demolished and the Newspaper to show that the

photographs were taken on that day was marked as Ex.P9 in

the said proceedings.

5. The material on record also indicates that the only

area of dispute between the parties with regard to alleged

violation and disobedience was whether the compound wall

and gate was put up by the appellants in violation of the order

of status-quo or whether the appellants were merely restoring

the compound wall at the schedule property that had

collapsed.

6. Having regard to the specific directions issued by this

Court in the aforesaid writ petitions directing the appellants to

demolish the compound wall, it is clear that this question need

not be gone into, since the alleged contempt / disobedience, if

any, has subsequently stood purged by the act of the

appellants in removing / demolishing the said compound wall.

7. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered

opinion that in view of the fact that the alleged contempt /

disobedience had stood purged by the appellants by removing

/ demolishing the existing compound wall pursuant to the

order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, the

trial court was not justified in directing the appellants to be

detained in civil prison by the impugned order.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that

despite the impugned order passed by the trial court and the

earlier order passed by the trial court, in addition to the earlier

act of disobedience / contempt, the appellants subsequently

once again committed the act of contempt / disobedience by

putting up sheds and another compound wall etc., by

encroaching upon the suit schedule property.

9. The said submission of the learned counsel for

respondent is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for

appellants.

10. In view of the fact that the aforesaid rival

contentions urged by both sides are the subject matter of

R.F.A.No.721/2016 c/w R.F.A.No.449/2016 pending

adjudication before this Court, I make it clear that the findings

and observations recorded by the trial court in the impugned

order as well as the findings and observations made by me in

this order will not come in the way of either of the party putting

forth their respective contentions in the pending appeals viz.,

R.F.A.No.721/2016 c/w R.F.A.No.449/2016 before this Court.

11. In the result, I pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) Appeal is disposed of.

(ii) The impugned order dated 24.02.2016 passed by

the trial court in Misc.No.938/2014 is set aside.

(iii) The observations made in the impugned order as

well as in this order will not prejudice the contentions of both

sides in R.F.A.No.721/2016 c/w R.F.A.No.449/2016.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Srl.