Dismissed

Sri B N Ashwathappa v. Chikkanarayanappa

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2014WP/38247/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenged an appellate order that vacated a temporary injunction in a civil suit over land. The Court held that the appellate court acting in discretion cannot be questioned in writ jurisdiction absent illegality on the face of the order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.

Sri B N Ashwathappa Vs Chikkanarayanappa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.38247 of 2013 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. B.N.Ashwathappa, Aged about 45 years, Son of Doddanarayanappa,

¶9

Smt. Lakshmidevamma, Wife of B.N.Ashwathappa, Aged about 40 years,

¶10

Both are residents of Kamareddyhalli, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapur District PIN - 561 208.

¶11

…PETITIONERS (By Shri. M. Rangappa, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Chikkanarayanappa, Son of Hanumanthappa,

¶14

¶15

Aged about 75 years,

¶16

Smt. Mangamma, Wife of Chikkanararyanappa, Aged about 65 years,

¶17

Manjunatha, Son of Chikkanarayanappa, Aged about 45 years,

¶18

Prakash B.N., Son of Chikkanarayanappa, Aged about 35 years,

¶19

All are residents of Kamareddyhalli, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapur District, Pin Code 561 208.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(By Shri. H.N.Basavaraju, Advocate)

¶22

¶23

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 17.6.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Gowribidanur in Misc.Appeal No.28/2012 on his filed under Annexure-H and etc;

¶24

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:

¶25

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The

¶28

petitioner was the plaintiff before the trial court seeking a declaration and injunction in respect of three acre of land. Though the trial court had granted an order of temporary injunction after contest, in an appeal by the defendants, the appellate court has found that there were certain inconsistencies with respect to the documents relied upon by the plaintiff and that there were other material which leaned in favour of the defendants and therefore, the court below has vacated the order of temporary injunction. The petitioner being aggrieved is before this court.

¶29

Though there are divergent opinions taken by the courts below where the appellate court has set aside the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court, they are orders passed in the discretion of the courts below, on an examination of the material on record. The circumstance was that the courts were addressing the case and had arrived at prima facie

¶30

¶31

findings. If there are debatable questions as to the respective documents relied upon by the parties, those would be subject matter of a full-fledged trial. Hence, the appellate court having set aside the order of the trial court was after assigning reasons and forming an opinion. This cannot be said to be illegal or

¶32

perverse. Therefore, the present petition is filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is not the forum where the matter can be addressed as if in appeal. As there is no illegality which can be found on the face of it, there is no warrant for interference. The petition is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Sri B N Ashwathappa v. Chikkanarayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B N Ashwathappa v. Chikkanarayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T R Bheemasena Rao Dead by Lrs Vs Fayaz Ahmed Khan

Sri Goriyappa Vs Smt Akkayyamma

K.G. Jacob Vs M.V. Vijendra

Shivanna Vs Manjunath

Smt R Sharadamma Vs Smt Mangala Gowramma

The Karnataka Power Vs Sri Garudaiah