Disposed

Lakkamma v. Sri. Mallaiah

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2021WP/4224/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, declined substantive interference with concurrent orders denying temporary inhibition, as the arguments did not fit standard exceptions to scrutiny. However, the Writ Court issue a direction for the trial court to dispose of the suit within one year.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to try and dispose of the suit (O.S.No.291/2015) within one year, without being influenced by remarks in the impugned orders.

Lakkamma Vs Sri. Mallaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.4224 OF 2017(GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LAKKAMMA

¶8

W/O. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT I D HALLI VILLAGE, I D HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT – 572 101. (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. MALLAIAH S/O. LATE. BASTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶13

SRI. SHIVAIAH S/O. LATE. BASTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶14

SRI. GANGADHARA S/O. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶15

SRI. MYLARAPPA S/O. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶16

MARIGAMMA W/O. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶17

SHARADHAMMA W/O. SHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶18

¶19

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT I D HALLI VILLAGE, I D HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶20

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER I D HALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATHI, I D HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.CHANDRAMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5 & R6 ARE DEAD; R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MADHUGIRI IN M.A.NO.21/2016 ON VIDE ANNX-D ON I.A.NO.1 HIS FILES AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS W.P.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.291/2015 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the order dated 19.10.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure-D whereby learned Civil Judge, Madhugiri, having rejected her appeal in M.A.No.21/2016 has affirmed the order of temporary injunction granted by the learned trial Judge, Madhugiri on 30.08.2016.

¶27

¶28

After service of notice, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have entered appearance through their counsel and they oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been founded.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter since learned judges of two Courts below have taken a concurrent stand in denying temporary protection to the petitioner; such discretionary orders ordinarily do not merit deeper examination at the hands of Writ Court subject to all just exceptions into which, argued case of the petitioner does not fit.

¶30

However, there is a lot of force in the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit should be tried & disposed off expeditiously and that the trial judge should not be influenced by the observations made in the impugned orders declining temporary protection, in any way.

¶31

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off requesting the learned judge of the Court

¶32

¶33

below to try & dispose off the suit within an outer limit of one year without being influenced by the observations in the impugned orders.

¶34

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Bsv

Lakkamma v. Sri. Mallaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakkamma v. Sri. Mallaiah

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

Smt. Lakshmibai Vs Smt. Prema

Koramangala 3RD Block Residents Welfare Vs the Assistant Director of Town Planning (South)

Keshavamurthy Vs Smt. Nirmala

Eliazeer Michel J Vs Smt. Alice Padmavathi

M Prabhakar Kolekar Vs M Nagaraju

Smt Premalatha Vs Sri Banudas K S