Karnataka High Court
Ramakrishna @ Malappa vs Marivenkataiah on 16 March, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
W.P. NO. 19632 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1 . RAMAKRISHNA @ MALAPPA
S/O CHIKKAVENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2 . KUMARA
S/O RAMAKRISHNA @ MALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
B G PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
3 . CHINAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
WORKING AT
K S R T C BUS DRIVER
MALAVALLI DEPO
MALAVALLI TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR H B, ADVOCATE)
AND
MARIVENKATAIAH
2
S/O LATE DODDAVENKATEGOWDA
R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
B G PURA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI , ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED
ON I.A.NO.1/2018 DATED 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 IN O.S.NO.196 OF
2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MALAVALLI AND JUDGMENT IN MA NO.11 OF 2018 DATED 09TH
AUGUST, 2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MALAVALLI VIDE ANNEXURES-D AND E AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.1/2018 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1
AND 2 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-C. AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the defendants 1 to 3 in OS
No.196 of 2018, challenging the judgment dated 09.08.2021
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli, in MA.
No.11 of 2018, wherein, the First Appellate Court confirmed the
order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli,
on IA.I in OS No.196 of 2018, allowing the application filed by
the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151
of Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Brief facts are that, the plaintiff has filed the suit for
permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from
interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the plaint,
plaintiff has filed IA.I under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary
injunction against the defendants and said application was
allowed by the Trial Court by its order dated 12.09.2018. Feeling
aggrieved by same, the defendants have preferred MA No.11 of
2018 before the First Appellate Court and the said appeal was
resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after
appreciating the material on record, by its judgment dated
09.08.2021, dismissed the appeal and as such, confirmed the
order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Trial Court on IA.I in OS
No.196 of 2018. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants
1 to 3 have filed this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited
the attention of this court to the finding recorded by the First
Appellate Court at paragraph 13 of its judgment and argued that
plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner in respect of the suit schedule property before this
Court in Writ Petition No.15796 of 2020. Therefore, he submitted
that finding recorded by both the courts below requires
interference in this writ petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, undisputably, the suit is filed by the plaintiff, seeking
permanent injunction and both the courts below have
concurrently held that, the plaintiff is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, interference
under Article 227 of Constitution of India is very limited in
respect of the order passed by the courts below. In that view of
the matter, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to
be dismissed, affirming the orders passed by both the courts
below. Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
