Allowed

Sri.Yamanappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani v. Sri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2020WP/111275/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition quashing the appellate court's order rejecting a stay application. It set aside the impugned order and directed the stay of execution of the trial court's decree pending the disposal of the appeal, as the decree had not attained finality.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.05.2019 is set aside and I.A.No.1 is allowed. Execution and operation of the trial court decree in O.S.No.85/2010 is stayed till disposal of the appeal.

Sri.Yamanappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani Vs Sri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.111275 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.YAMANAPPA S/O HARIYAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIRESULIKERI, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI DEEPAK C MAGANUR, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

SRI.RANGAPPA S/O HARIYAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O: HIRESULIKERI, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

¶13

TIPPAVVA

¶14

W/O MUKAPPA LAMANI, AAGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O: NAVALA TANDA, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227.

¶15

LACHHAMAVVA D/O HANUMANTAPPA LAMANI,

¶16

¶17

AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O: HIRESULIKERI, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

¶18

MANAVVA

¶19

S/O SAKRAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O: NAVALA TANDA, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL-583227.

¶20

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NH 13, KOPPAL-583132.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI B C JNANAYYASWAMI, ADV. FOR R1-R4 SRI VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, AGA FOR R-5)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2019 ON I.A.1 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, IN R.A.NO.21/2017 AT ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION, CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

¶27

30.05.2019 passed on I.A.No.1 in R.A.No.21/2017 by

¶28

the Senior Civil Judge, Koppal, has filed this writ petition.

¶29

¶30

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶31

The respondents had filed a suit in

¶32

O.S.No.85/2010 for declaration and injunction against

¶33

the petitioner. The Trial Court decree the suit of the respondents. The petitioner aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court preferred an appeal in R.A.No.21/2017 before the Senior Civil Judge, Koppal. The petitioner along with the memorandum of appeal has filed I.A.No.1 for staying the execution and operation of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The respondents have opposed the application filed by the petitioner. The Appellate Court passed an order dated 30.05.2019 rejecting I.A.No.1. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, has filed this writ petition.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

¶37

respondents. Perused the records and also the impugned order.

¶38

The respondents have filed a suit for

¶39

declaration and injunction and the Trial Court decreed the suit. The petitioner aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the said suit, preferred the appeal and filed an application for staying the execution and operation of the judgment and decree. In the impugned order, the Appellate Court has observed that the Trial Court after appreciating the entire material on record has decreed the suit and it is

¶40

further observed that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for staying the execution of the judgment and decree under appeal. The Appellate Court has lost sight that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is under challenge and the same has not attained finality. The Appellate Court is required to reconsider the findings arrived by the Trial

¶41

¶42

Court after hearing the matter on merits. Without considering the material on record, the Appellate Court has observed that there are no sufficient cause or reason shown by the petitioner. Hence the Appellate Court has committed an error in rejecting I.A.No.1 and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶43

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The writ petition is allowed.

¶46

The impugned order dated 30.05.2019 as per Annexure-H is set aside. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 filed in R.A.No.21/2017 is allowed.

¶47

The execution and operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.85/2010 dated 23.10.2017 is stayed till the disposal of the appeal.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sri.Yamanappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani v. Sri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Yamanappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani v. Sri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

One Roof Solutions Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Amaragundappa S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Maharudreshwar S/O Mrutyunjaya Sheelavantar Vs the Secretary

Shri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani Vs Assistant Commissioner

Smt.Lalitha W/O Krishna Huddar Vs Basappa S/O Irappa Kothin

Shri.Roopesh Shrikant Vyas Vs the State of Karnataka