Sri.Mallikarjunagouda S/O ... vs Sri.Karibasavanagouda S/O Late ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5138 Kant

                                                   -1-
                                                         NC: 2023:KHC-D:8048
                                                          MFA No. 100450 of 2019




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                                BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100450 OF 2019
                                                 (CPC)
                       BETWEEN:

                       1.     SRI. MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA
                              S/O RAMANAGOUDA,
                              AGE: 62 YEARS,
                              OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
                              R/O: BYRAPURA VILLAGE,
                              TQ: SIRUGUPPA,
                              DIST: BALLARI-583121.

                       1.A SMT. NAGAMMA
                           W/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA,
                           AGE: 57 YEARS,
                           OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

                       1.B SRI. R.MANJUNATHGOUDA
                           S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA,
          Digitally
          signed by
                           AGE: 36 YEARS,
SAROJA
          SAROJA
          HANGARAKI
HANGARAKI Date:
                           OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
          2023.08.04
          11:44:09 -
          0700

                       1.C SRI. R AMARESHGOUDA
                           S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA,
                           AGE: 38 YEARS,
                           OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

                       1.D SRI. PRAKASHGOUDA
                           S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA,
                           AGE: 34 YEARS,
                           OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

                              ALL ARE R/O. BAIRAPURA CROSS,
                              BAIRAPURA POST,
                              -2-
                                    NC: 2023:KHC-D:8048
                                     MFA No. 100450 of 2019




     TQ: SHIRAGOPPA,
     DIST: BALLARI.
                                               ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

    SRI.KARIBASAVANAGOUDA
    S/O LATE RAMANAGOUDA,
    AGE: 55 YEARS,
    OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
    R/O: BYRAPURA VILLAGE,
    TQ: SIRUGUPPA,
    DIST: BALLARI-583121.
                                              ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(s) OF THE CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:14.12.2018,
PASSED IN O.S.NO.126/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, SIRUGUPPA, ALLOWING THE IA NO.10 FILED
U/O. 40 RULE 1 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

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

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated

14.12.2018 in O.S.No.126/2016 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Siruguppa.

2. In terms of the impugned order, the application

filed by the plaintiff under Order XL Rule 1 of Code of Civil

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8048 MFA No. 100450 of 2019

Procedure is allowed and receiver is appointed to manage

the suit schedule property.

3. It is stated that the suit schedule property is an

agricultural land. Pursuant to the appeal filed by the

appellant/defendant, this Court vide order dated

12.03.2019 stayed the operation of the impugned order

appointing the receiver. Admittedly, till today the receiver

is not appointed and no further application is filed

reporting alleged mismanagement by either of the parties.

4. Under these circumstances, considering the fact

that the suit is filed in the year 2016, this Court is of the

view that it would be in the interest of both parties that a

direction has to be issued to the trial Court to expedite and

decide the matter within six months from the date of this

order.

5. Sri.Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel

for the appellants would also point to the fact that the

application of the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8048 MFA No. 100450 of 2019

was rejected by the trial Court and thereafter he has filed

an application for appointment of receiver. The property is

not managed by the receiver though the order of

appointment of receiver is passed in 2019. Hence, there is

no need to appoint the receiver.

6. It is also required to be noticed that receiver is

to be appointed only in such cases where the

mismanagement is established. The materials on record

would not indicate that the property is mismanaged. It is

also an admitted fact that the land is agricultural land.

Accordingly, the application for appointment of receiver is

rejected by setting aside the impugned order.

7. Since this Court has fixed mandate to dispose

of the matter within six months, it is expected that both

parties shall co-operate in early disposal of the suit before

the trial Court and shall not take any unnecessary

adjournment.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8048 MFA No. 100450 of 2019

8. It is also made clear that this Court has not

expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Any

observations made in this order are only confined to

disposal of this appeal.

9. The trial Court shall decide the suit without

being influenced by any of the observations other than the

mandate for early disposal made in this order, as nothing

is decided on merits.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Order dated

14.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.126/2016 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge, Siruguppa is set aside.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SH