Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddanagouda S/O Parvathagouda ... vs Smt Basavva W/O Neelappa Gundudi on 20 August, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10506
WP No. 101636 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.101636 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SIDDANAGOUDA
S/O. PARVATHAGOUDA MARICHANNAPPAGOUDAR,
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. NOOLVI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580029.
2. SRI. IRANAGOUDA
S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA MARICHANNAPPAGOUDAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. NOOLVI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
Digitally signed by DIST. DHARWAD-580029.
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA 3. SRI. MALLIKARJUNGOUDA
MALAGALADINNI
Location: High
S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA MARICHANNAPPAGOUDAR,
Court of AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
Karnataka, R/O. NOOLVI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
Dharwad Bench, DIST. DHARWAD-580029.
Dharwad
4. SRI. MANJUGOUDA
S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA MARICHANNAPPAGOUDAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. NOOLVI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580029.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT BASAVVA W/O. NEELAPPA GUNDUDI,
AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. NOOLVI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10506
WP No. 101636 of 2024
HC-KAR
DIST. DHARWAD-580029.
2. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O. CHANNABASAPPA HADIMANI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS,
R/O. NOOLVI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580029.
3. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA HADIMANI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS,
R/O. NOOLVI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580029.
4. SRI. RAMU S/O. CHANNABASAPPA HADIMANI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS,
R/O. NOOLVI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580029.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE JUDGEMENT DATED. 01-07-2023
PASSED IN MA NO.30/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI, VIDE "ANNEXURE-F" IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.B) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER ON IA NO.1 PASSED ON 27-
09-2022 IN OS NO.30/2021 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,
AT HUBBALLI, VIDE "ANNEXURE-E", IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view
of the proposed order to be passed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10506
HC-KAR
2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of Certiorari by quashing the Judgment
dated. 01-07-2023 passed in M.A.No.30/2022 on
the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hubballi, vide "Annexure-F" in the interest of
justice and equity.
b) Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the order on
Ia No.1 passed on 27-09-2022 in OS No.30/2021
on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge, at Hubballi, vide
"Annexure-E" in the interest of justice and equity.
c) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble
deems just and proper under facts and
circumstances of case including award of cost in
interest of justice and equity.
3. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.30/2021
against the petitioners, who were arrayed as
were arrayed as defendant Nos.5 to 7, seeking for a
declaration that the compromise decree in
O.S.No.735/2016 was not binding on the plaintiff
therein as also for a consequential relief of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from demolishing the compound wall.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10506
HC-KAR
4. In the said suit, an application under Rule 1 and 2 of
Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short
'CPC') having been filed, the trial Court vide order
dated 27.09.2022, granted an order of injunction
restraining the defendants, the petitioners herein,
from demolishing the compound wall, which when
taken on appeal in M.A.No.30/2022, came to be
confirmed. It is challenging both the orders, the
petitioners are before this Court.
5. The submission of Shri Shivasai M.Patil, learned
counsel for the petitioners, is that the compound wall
had been constructed with the permission and
consent of the petitioners for a temporary period.
Now that the petitioners do not consent to further
continuation of the compound wall, the defendants
would be entitled to demolish the compound wall.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
having perused papers, what the trial Court and the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10506
HC-KAR
First Appellate Court have done is, to preserve the
subject matter of the dispute in status quo by
preventing the demolition of the compound wall. In
the event of this Court interceding in the matter, it is
more than likely that the defendants would demolish
the compound wall, which would not enure to the
benefit of the plaintiff in the event of plaintiff
succeeding in the suit.
7. In that view of the matter, one of the objects of Rule
1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of CPC being to protect the
subject matter of the dispute in status quo until the
decision is rendered on merits, I do not find any
infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court or the
First Appellate Court. The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
AM/-
CT:PA
