Karnataka High Court
Dk Channegowda vs C Kondaiah on 4 April, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14234
WP No. 6072 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6072 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
D K CHANNEGOWDA
S/O KONDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O DODDARASINKERE VILLAGE,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.B.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
C KONDAIAH
S/O CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT DODDARASINKERE VILLAGE,
C A KERE HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI.H.T.NATARAJA, ADVOCATE)
VANDANA S
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 12.12.2023 PASSED BY
THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADDUR IN MA
24/2023 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DTD. 17.03.2023 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADDUR IN O.S.NO.221/2022.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14234
WP No. 6072 of 2024
ORDER
This petition is by the defendant in O.S.No.221/2022
on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur,
is directed against the impugned order dated 12.12.2023
whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff in
M.A.No.24/2023 was allowed by the First Appellate Court.
2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that
the respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit
against the petitioner/defendant for permanent injunction and
other reliefs in relation to Sri Devi Yelluramma Pattaladamma
Temple. Along with the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an
application, I.A.No.1 for temporary injunction and the same was
rejected by the trial court by order dated 17.03.2023.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/plaintiff having preferred an
appeal in M.A.No.24/2023, which was contested by the
petitioner/defendant, the First Appellate Court proceeded
to pass the impugned order allowing the appeal and remitting
the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration of I.A.No.1,
in accordance with law, by directing as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:14234
"O R D E R
IA-1 filed by the Appellant-plaintiff under order 41 rule 27
CPC and memo filed by the respondent dated 18/11/23 are hereby
allowed and consequently the documents filed with application and
memo are taken on record.
As a result, the instant appeal preferred by the plaintiff-
appellant against the defendant- respondent under order 43 Rule
1(r) of CPC challenging the order dated 17/3/23 passed by the court
of Principal Civil Judge, Maddur in O.S.No. 221/2022 on I.A.No.1
filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C dated 17/3/23 is hereby
allowed and the said order of the trial court is hereby set aside and
matter is remanded to the trial court for decision on the application
afresh.
The trial court is directed to dispose off the application afresh
by hearing both parties and by considering the documents
pronounced by the parties in the appeal including the facts and
circumstances of the case.
In view of nature of the case, the trial court is requested to
dispose off the application at the earliest and on priority.
No order as to cost.
Send a copy of the judgment and decree of the instant appeal
immediately to the Trial Court.
Office shall send the documents filed by the Appellant-plaintiff
with the application filed under order 41 rule 27 CPC dated 7/11/23
and documents filed by the respondent dated 18/11/23 with due
acknowledgment. The office shall also retain a set of copies of the
said documents with it."
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner/defendant that
in addition to remitting the matter to the trial court,
the First Appellate Court has passed the order of temporary
NC: 2024:KHC:14234
injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The said
apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for petitioner
unwarranted though there appears to be an ambiguity in the
operative portion of the impugned order passed by the First
Appellate Court. However, the said apprehension of the learned
counsel for the petitioner can be allayed by clarifying
that the First Appellate Court has merely remitted the
matter back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in
accordance with law by leaving open all contentions and that the
First Appellate Court has not passed any order on merits
either in favour of the respondent/plaintiff nor expressed any
opinion on merits/demerits of the rival contentions.
4. Under these circumstances, the present petition is
disposed off directing the trial court to reconsider the I.A.No.1
afresh in accordance with law as directed in the impugned
order by keeping open all contentions and without expressing
any opinion on merits/demerits of the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AV
