Karnataka High Court
Sri Rudresh vs Smt. Anasuyamma on 4 December, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43683
WP No. 25534 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 25534 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI RUDRESH
S/O LATE DUMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT KURUBARA BEEDI
BEHIND BERALINGESHWARA TEMPLE
CHANNAGIRI TOWN
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
PINCDE-577130.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADV. (VC))
AND:
Digitally signed by
A K CHANDRIKA
Location: High 1. SMT. ANASUYAMMA
Court Of W/O LATE SRIKANTHAIAH
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT GOWDARA BEEDI
CHANNAGIRI TOWN
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
PINCODE-577130.
2. SRI G S JAGANNATHA
S/O LATE SRIKANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/A GOWDARA BEEDI
CHANNAGIRI TOWN
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43683
WP No. 25534 of 2023
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
PINCODE-577130.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 27.10.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.25/2023 BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI,
ANNEXURE-E AND PASS SUITABLE ORDER AND TO GRANT
STAY TO THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.08.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.179/2019 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI, BY
ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND
ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION BY IMPOSING EXEMPLARY COSTS
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel Sri.P.M.Siddamallappa for
petitioner and learned counsel Smt.Saritha Kulkarni for
caveator/respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the
petitioner/appellant in R.A.No.25/2023 on the file of Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Channagiri, is before this Court
aggrieved by order dated 27.10.2023 by which, I.A.No.1
filed under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC is rejected.
NC: 2023:KHC:43683
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.127/2019 for
permanent injunction against the defendant i.e., petitioner
herein and the said suit was decreed by judgment and
decree dated 08.08.2023. Learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that against the said judgment
and decree, the petitioner/defendant filed R.A.No.25/2023
and along with R.A., the petitioner is said to have filed
I.A.No.I under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC praying to stay the
said judgment and decree dated 08.08.2023. Learned
counsel would submit that the trial Court committed an
error in rejecting the I.A. filed under Order XLI Rule 5 of
CPC. It is further submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs
had no order of ad-interim injunction during the pendency
of the suit and as such, the Appellate Court ought to have
stayed the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.127/2019.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent/caveator would submit that the
NC: 2023:KHC:43683
respondents/plaintiffs had ad-interim order of temporary
injunction throughout the suit and in fact, learned counsel,
along with a memo dated 04.12.2023 places on record the
order dated 29.11.2019 on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.127/2019
wherein ad-interim order of temporary injunction was
granted in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and order dated
22.07.2020 in W.P.No.6337/2020 wherein this Court
directed jurisdictional Police to implement the order
passed by the trial Court dated 29.11.2019 and protect
the possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property
from any interference by defendant. Thus, she prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for permanent
injunction was decreed by judgment and decree dated
08.08.2023. Order dated 29.11.2019 on I.A.No.1 in
O.S.No.127/2019 makes it clear that the
respondents/plaintiffs had the benefit of ad-interim order
of temporary injunction throughout the trial in the suit.
Moreover, the order passed by this Court dated
NC: 2023:KHC:43683
22.07.2020 in W.P.No.6337/2020 would indicate that this
Court directed the jurisdictional police to provide police
assistance to implement ad-interim order of temporary
injunction dated 29.11.2019 and to protect possession of
the respondents/ plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule
property from any interference by respondent i.e.,
petitioner herein.
6. In the light of the above orders, the first Appellate
Court is justified in rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Order XLI
Rule 5 of CPC. I do not find any error in the impugned
order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MPK
CT:bms
