Karnataka High Court
Smt. B.L. Aswathamma vs Basavaraja M on 15 December, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45752
WP No. 25043 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 25043 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. B.L. ASWATHAMMA
W/O B.M. GANGADHAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. GANGADHAR
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
BOTH R/AT BEEDIGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 562 121
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: HANUMANTHAPPA B. HARAVI GOWDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by PAVITHRA N 1. BASAVARAJA M
Location: high S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
court of AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
karnataka
2. MAHESH
S/O BASAVARAJA M.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
BOTH R/AT BEEDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA
TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 121
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO I) QUASH OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
10/12/2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL AND CJM
AT CHIKKABALLAPURA IN MA NO. 19/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND
ETC.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45752
WP No. 25043 of 2023
THIS WP, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners/defendants in O.S.No.457/2019 are
before this Court challenging the order dated 07.08.2020
passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC.,
Chikkaballapura (for short, 'Trial Court') in O.S.No.457/2019
and the judgment dated 10.12.2021 passed by the First
Appellate Court in M.A.No.19/2020 confirming the order passed
by the trial Court.
2. Heard Sri Hanumanthappa B. Haravi Gowdar, learned
counsel for the petitioners/defendants and perused the petition
papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants
would submit that the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs is one
for injunction against the petitioners/defendants, restraining
them from demolishing the farm house and not to dispossess
the plaintiffs from the Suit Schedule Property. The
respondents/plaintiffs along with the suit had filed I.A.No.1,
seeking an order of temporary injunction which was allowed by
the trial Court vide order dated 07.08.2020. Against which, the
NC: 2023:KHC:45752
petitioners/defendants preferred appeal in MA No.19/2020 on
the file the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Chikkaballapur. The First Appellate Court by order dated
10.12.2021 dismissed the appeal by confirming the order
passed by the trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have
committed an error in granting injunction in favour of the
respondents/plaintiffs when they have not made out prima-
facie case for grant of injunction.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the
respondents/plaintiffs have no manner of right, title and
interest over the Suit Schedule Property. They were never in
possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property.
Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.87, measuring to an
extent of 3 guntas having acquired the same through registered
sale deed dated 19.06.2006.
6. It is submitted that defendant No.1, wife of
defendant No.2 has also filed O.S.No.393/2019 against the
NC: 2023:KHC:45752
respondents/plaintiffs. Further, defendant No.1 has also
questioned the illegal mutation obtained by the plaintiffs in
respect of the Suit Schedule Property. Thus, learned counsel
would submit that when the respondents/plaintiffs had failed to
make out prima-facie case, the trial Court without examining
the same, granted injunction order which needs to be interfered
with.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants and on perusal of the writ petition
papers, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for interference
as no ground is made out and further, the impugned order is
neither perverse nor suffers from material irregularity so as to
warrant interference.
8. The petitioners are before this Court challenging the
order of the trial Court dated 07.08.2020 and the order of the
First Appellate Court dated 10.12.2021, after more than three
years from the trial Court order and more than two years after
the Appellate Court order. The petitioners are not diligent in
prosecuting the case. Moreover, it is submitted that the suit is
at the stage of evidence.
NC: 2023:KHC:45752
9. A perusal of the impugned orders of the trial Court
as well as the First Appellate Court, it is seen that the Courts
below on scrutiny of the documents, have come to the
conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out a prima-facie case
and taking note of the materials on record, granted injunction
against the petitioners. No reasons are made out to interfere
with the impugned orders.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PN
