Karnataka High Court
Mr. Shivanna vs Venkatarayappa on 30 August, 2023
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31113
WP No. 8142 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 8142 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. SHIVANNA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT KARIGANATHAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561209.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHETHAN A C, ADV.)
AND:
1. VENKATARAYAPPA
S/O RAMAGA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
2. RAMAREDDY
S/O DODDANARASIMHAPPA
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
GURURAJ D
Location: High 3. CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA
Court of Karnataka S/O RAMAGA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
4. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA
S/O RAMAGA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
5. GOPAL
S/O VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
6. MANJUNATHA
S/O CHIKKANARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31113
WP No. 8142 of 2020
7. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O MUKKANARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KARIGANATHAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561209.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VISHWANATH R HEDGE, ADV. FOR R1-R7)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 23.08.2019 IN M.A.NO.20/2018 PASSED ON I.A.1 BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUDIBANDE (ANNEXURE-A) AND
CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 9TH JULY 2018 PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE, GUDIBANDE IN O.S.NO.147/2018 ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.147/2018 on the file
of the Civil Judge, Gudibande is before this Court
challenging the judgment and order dated 23.08.2019 in
M.A. No.20/2018 wherein the order dated 09.07.2018 in
O.S.No.147/2018 on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is set aside.
2. Heard Sri.Chethan A.C., learned counsel for
petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Vishwanath R Hegde for
respondents/defendants. Perused the writ petition papers.
NC: 2023:KHC:31113
WP No. 8142 of 2020
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is for bear injunction.
Along with suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaint
schedule properties. The trial Court, by order dated
09.07.2018 allowed the said I.A. and restrained the
defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties
till the disposal of the suit. The said order was taken up in
appeal by the respondents/defendants in M.A.No.20/2018.
The Appellate Court under judgment and order dated
23.08.2019 allowed appeal and set aside the order
allowing I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
CPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the material on
record and finding recorded by the trial Court with regard
to prima facie case. Further, learned counsel would
NC: 2023:KHC:31113
WP No. 8142 of 2020
submit that the trial Court failed to look into the revenue
records where the name of petitioner appears for the year
2013-14 and earlier to that the name of father of the
petitioner appeared in the revenue records. Thus, learned
counsel would submit that the Appellate Court order is the
result of non-application of mind as well as not looking
into the records produced by the petitioner/plaintiff.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.Vishwanath
Hegde for respondents/defendants would submit that the
suit is at the stage of plaintiff's evidence and there is no
interim order operating against the defendants for the last
four years. It is submitted that the appellate order was
passed on 23.08.2019 and the present writ petition is filed
nearly one year thereafter. The Appellate Court has
observed that the trial Court has not considered the sale
deeds and partition deed produced by the
respondents/defendants. Therefore, he submits that on
going though the material on record, the Appellate Court
has rightly allowed the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:31113
WP No. 8142 of 2020
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order. Admittedly, there is no
interim order in favour of the petitioner for the last four
years and the suit is at the stage of plaintiff's evidence.
Without going into the merits of the case, I deem it
appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit
expeditiously.
The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit
expeditiously with the cooperation of the learned counsels
as well as parties to the suit.
With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MPK
CT:bms
