Karnataka High Court
K.R.Srinivasa Murthy vs Sri. Noor Ahmed on 18 December, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45957
WP No. 17354 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 17354 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
K.R.SRINIVASA MURTHY
S/O LATE K V RAMANA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.36, 1ST MAIN
7TH CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU- 560064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU, ADV.)
AND:
SRI. NOOR AHMED
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
Digitally
signed by A K S/O SYED HUSSAIN
CHANDRIKA R/AT NO.583
Location: KONDAPPA LAYOUT
HIGH COURT YELAHANKA
OF BENGALURU- 560064.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR RECORDS IN
O.S. NO. 1158/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND M.A. NO.136/2022,
ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU RURAL AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45957
WP No. 17354 of 2023
ORDER
Petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.1158/2021 on the file of
the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru (for short, 'Trial Court') is before this Court
challenging order dated 01.10.2022 rejecting I.A.No.1 filed
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and also judgment
dated 19.07.2023 in M.A.No.136/2022 on the file of the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru (for short, 'Appellate Court') confirming order
passed by the Trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Omkar Basava
Prabhu for petitioner. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is one for permanent
injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It is
submitted that petitioner/plaintiff is claiming site No.244
whereas defendant/respondent is claiming site No.246 in
the same layout. It is submitted that both the parties
placed reliance on the same layout plan. Learned counsel
NC: 2023:KHC:45957
would submit that though the layout plan depicts site
No.246, it would not match the boundaries mentioned by
respondent/defendant. Learned counsel would further
submit that though the petitioner/plaintiff had made out
prima-facie case, Trial Court failed to appreciate the same
and also failed to appreciate that the balance of
convenience is in favour of petitioner/plaintiff since site
No.244 depicted in the layout plan matches with the
boundary mentioned in the plaint. Thus, he prays for
allowing the writ petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am
of the view that Trial Court and Appellate Court are
justified in rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and confirming the same.
5. A perusal of the order passed by Trial Court, it
is seen that the main dispute between petitioner/plaintiff
and respondent/defendant is identity of property. Both
petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant are claiming
NC: 2023:KHC:45957
same site, but with different site numbers. As observed by
Trial Court, it needs full pledged trial to decide the
possession of parties over the suit schedule property.
Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by
Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court.
There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly
writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
