High Court quashed an appellate order granting injunction and entertaining application under Section 90(2) CPC. Directing trial court to examine urgency, genuineness, vendor's title, and dispose matter in three months.
Injunction order quashed; trial court directed to dispose matter in three months after examining urgency and title.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2014
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH
Writ Petition 42215 / 2012 (GM CPC)
Between
Both are agriculturists and r/o Chinnasandra Village Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Tq
Petitioners
(By Sri Anant V Albal, Adv.)
And
2
3 Tahsildar Chintamani Taluk Chintamani
Respondents
(By Sri B R Vishwanath, Adv. For R1)
Writ Petition is filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 15.12.2011 in MA 22/2009 by the Sr. Civil Judge, Chintamani. Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Suit was filed by the respondent before the trial court seeking for a declaration and injunction. In that, an application was filed under S.80(2) of the Civil procedure Code seeking dispensation of notice to the government as contemplated. However, an injunction order was granted by the appellate court subsequently. The suit is pending before the trial court. This petition arises out of the order passed in favour of the respondent –
one for injunction and another for entertaining the application under S.90(2), CPC for dispensation.
Heard the counsel representing the parties.
3
It is also submitted at the bar, the parties are ready to get the matter disposed of at the earliest.
However, while modifying the order of injunction granted to maintain statusquo pending disposal/result of the suit, since the application is already entertained under S.80(2), CPC without making a ground for urgency, having regard to the fact that there is no such genuine grant made, etc., all those aspects have to be submitted before the trial court and also the title of the respondent vendor has to be looked into before passing any order on merits. All contentions are left open to be urged before the trial court. Trial court is directed to dispose of the matter in three months.
Subject to the above, petition is disposed of.
Sd/Judge
an
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing the appellate order fixing injunction should be allowed given the pending suit under Section 80(2) CPC.
Whether the application for dispensation of notice under Section 90(2) CPC needs further scrutiny by the trial court.
Whether the trial court is directed to dispose of the pending suit rapidly while maintaining status quo.
Rahamathualla
Shafiulla
Afsar Pasha
Government of Karnataka
Tahsildar Chintamani
Huluvadi G Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
