Disposed

Mr.Sunil S/O Shankrayya Sadashivpeth v. Shri.Harunsab S/O Dawalsab Dhamanekar

Karnataka HC9 May 2019WP/110152/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an ex-parte interim injunction order. The petitioner withdrew the petition, opting to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to discharge the injunction, requesting the lower court to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC; lower court to expedite within 30 days.

Mr.Sunil S/O Shankrayya Sadashivpeth Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.110152/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.SUNIL S/O SHANKRAYYA SADASHIVPETH AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: 2646, SECTOR NO.12, MALAMARUTI EXTENSION, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHRI.HARUNSAB S/O DAWALSAB DHAMANEKAR AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BARGAON, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

SHRI.SIKANDAR S/O DAWALSAB DHAMANEKAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BARGAON, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

SHRI.KHATALSAB S/O DAWALSAB DHAMANEKAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BARGAON, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

¶16

SHRI.SAYYADSAB S/O IMAMSAB DHAMANEKAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BARGAON, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SHRI.SUBHANI S/O HASANSAB DHAMANEKAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BARGAON, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. SHRI.DADASAB S/O SHAMANSAB DHAMANEKAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BARGAON, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. SHRI.YUVARAJ S/O GANAGRAM @ GANGO GAVADE (GHADI) AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KENCHAPUR GALLI, KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. 8. SMT.AMBABAI W/O BABAJI GADI AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: KENCHAPUR GALLI, KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. ... RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KHANAPUR AT KHANAPUR IN O.S.NO.115/2018 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A WHEREIN THE LEARNED JUDGE PASSED AN ORDER GRANTING AD INTERIM INJUNCTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6 (PLAINTIFFS) WITHOUT EVEN WAITING FOR THE SERVICE OF SUIT SUMMONS ON THE PRESENT PETITIONER (DEFENDANT NO.3) AND PASSED AN ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO TILL FURTHER ORDERS.

¶18

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for some

¶22

time.

¶23

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner urged several grounds, during the course of arguments, it is noticed that an order has been passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶24

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, without giving notice, though the Court is not inclined to pass any interim order, only on the day when the order has been passed, the case was taken on board and the impugned status-quo order has been passed.

¶25

But as could be seen from Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, if any order of injunction is passed, then the Court which has passed the order, is having right to discharge or stay the said order on an application filed by the dissatisfied parties. No such application has been filed by the petitioner

¶26

¶27

and against the said order an appeal also lies to the jurisdictional Court. No such appeal has also been filed.

¶28

Under such facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will withdraw the writ petition and he will file an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Court.

¶29

With the said liberty, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

If any such application is filed on the advice of the learned counsel, then the Court below is directed to expedite the same within an outer limit of 30 days from filing of such an application.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

gab

Mr.Sunil S/O Shankrayya Sadashivpeth v. Shri.Harunsab S/O Dawalsab Dhamanekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Sunil S/O Shankrayya Sadashivpeth v. Shri.Harunsab S/O Dawalsab Dhamanekar

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

M Samsun Karim Raja @ Karim @ Abdul Karim Vs Superintendent of Police

Smt Asha Vs State of Karnataka

Manja @ Kuppi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Channappa S/O Fakeerappa Rathod Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sadanand S/O Narayan Naik Vs District Legal Services Authority

Dr.Bhushan S/O Sudhakar Wankhaded Vs the Immigration Officer