Karnataka High Court
Sri D S Hiranya Gowda vs Sri Narayanaswamy on 7 December, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44390
WP No. 12655 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 12655 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI D S HIRANYA GOWDA
SINCE DEAD
REP. BY HIS LR'S
1(A). SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE SRI D.S. HIRANYA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
1(B). SRI D.H. RAMESH
S/O LATE SRI D.S. HIRANYA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
1(C). SRI D.H. SURENDRA KUMAR
Digitally signed S/O LATE SRI D.S. HIRANYA GOWDA
by A K
CHANDRIKA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1(D). SRI MANJUNATH
S/O LATE SRI D.S. HIRANYA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.25,
DODDAMALLE VILLAGE
TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT -563137 .
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADV.)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44390
WP No. 12655 of 2022
AND:
1. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT DODDAMALLE VILLAGE
TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563137.
2. SRI CHALAPATHI
S/O SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT DODDAMALLE VILLAGE
TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563137.
3. SRI MURALI
S/O SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT DODDAMALLE VILLAGE
TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563137.
4. SRI RAJESH
S/O SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT DODDAMALLE VILLAGE
TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563137.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PAVAN N., ADV. FOR
SRI. ASHOK B PATIL, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN MA NO.3/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SR.CIVIL
JUDGE AT MALUR AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
22.04.2022 PASSED IN MA NO.3/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
SR.CIVIL JUDGE AT MALUR VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:44390
WP No. 12655 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioners, legal representatives of original
plaintiff in O.S.No.25/2022 on the file of the II Additional
Civil Judge & JMFC at Malur are before this Court,
questioning the judgment dated 22.04.2022 in
M.A.No.03/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Malur
confirming order dated 16.03.2022 in O.S.No.25/2022
rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
of CPC to restrain the respondents/defendants from
putting up any construction on the suit schedule property.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.P.B.Raju for
petitioners/plaintiffs and learned counsel Sri.Pavan N for
respondents/defendants. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would
submit that the suit of the plaintiffs is for permanent
injunction in respect of the suit schedule property on the
allegation that the defendants by encroaching the suit
schedule property are proceeding with the construction.
NC: 2023:KHC:44390
Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the
written statement filed by the respondents/defendants
particularly paragraph 10 which states that the defendants
laid foundation over their property and are stocking all the
construction materials. Therefore, learned counsel would
submit that the Appellate Court on the ground that the
petitioners/appellants have not made out prima-facie case
and on the ground that the appellants have not come to
the Appellate Court with clean hands rejected the appeal.
Learned counsel would submit that since the
respondents/defendants have completed construction, he
would submit that respondents/defendants shall not claim
any equity. Learned counsel Sri.Raju would submit that
the writ petition be disposed of by observing that any
construction would be subject to outcome of the suit.
4. Submission of the learned counsel appears to be
reasonable.
The writ petition is disposed of.
NC: 2023:KHC:44390
It is further made clear that the construction, if any
by the respondents/defendants would be subject to
outcome of the suit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MPK
CT:bms
