Dismissed

Sri. Ganapati S/O Bhimarao Kuligud v. Sri. Mallappa S/O Shivappa Hosapeti

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022WP/105320/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a writ petition filed by plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner sought to quash an appeal order modifying a temporary injunction. The High Court found no necessity to interfere after five years. It directed the writ petition to be disposed off and ordered the Civil Court to decide the suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed off. The Principal Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

Sri. Ganapati S/O Bhimarao Kuligud Vs Sri. Mallappa… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 105320 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 105320 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. GANAPATI S/O BHIMARAO KULIGUD AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: MUGALKHOD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶12

SRI. MALLAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA HOSAPETI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: MUGALKOD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

SRI.APPASAB S/O SHIVAPPA HOSAPETI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: MUGALKOD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

SRI.VINAYAK S/O GANGADHAR KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶15

¶16

WP No. 105320 of 2017

¶17

R/AT: MUGALKOD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶18

SRI.SURESH S/O GANGADHAR KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: MUGALKOD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

SRI.RAMESH S/O GANGADHAR KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: MUGALKOD, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI SANGAMESH S. GHULAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:- QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG, PASSED IN MA NO.9 OF 2016 DATED:01.02.2017 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-F MODIFYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG PASSED IN O.S.NO.536 OF 2016 DATED:01.09.2016, COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND REJECT I.A.NO.II FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

WP No. 105320 of 2017

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for following reliefs:

¶28

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction and quash the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Raibag, passed in MA No.9/2016 dated 01.02.2017 copy as per Annexure-F modifying the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Raibag passed in O.S.No.536/2016 dated 01.09.2016, copy as per Annexure-D and allow the writ petition and reject I.A.No.II filed by the respondent No. 1 and 2, and/or

¶29

b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶30

OS No.536/2016 had been filed seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession as regard suit scheduled property. In the said suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of C.P.C., had been filed seeking temporary injunction. The said application came to be allowed and the defendants were restrained from creating a new road over the suit scheduled properties.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 105320 of 2017

¶33

Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal in M.A. No.9/2016 and the First Appellate Court vide order dated 01.02.2017 allowed the appeal and modified the order by directing both the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit on merits.

¶34

It is aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court. On enquiry both the counsel submit that, the matter is now posted for evidence of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to lead his evidence on the next date. In view of the said fact, I am of the considered opinion that there would be no requirement to intercede in the matter after 5 years from the date of order passed by the First Appellate Court and as such I pass the following order.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 105320 of 2017

¶37

ORDER

¶38

a) The writ petition stands disposed off.

¶39

b) The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Raibag is directed to dispose of the suit in OS No.536/2016 as expeditiously as possible.

¶40

c) The submission made by both the counsel is directed to Co-operate with the Trial Court, led their evidence, keep their witness present and would not seek for any unnecessary adjournment is placed on record.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

SSP,SH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri. Ganapati S/O Bhimarao Kuligud v. Sri. Mallappa S/O Shivappa Hosapeti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ganapati S/O Bhimarao Kuligud v. Sri. Mallappa S/O Shivappa Hosapeti

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

Ramesh S/O Goneppa Doddaputtannavar, Vs Smt.Gangamma W/O Ramappa Samudri

Pujar Shivappa @ Sudha Vs Gouramma

Smt.Shivabasawwa W/O Karabasappa Hosamani Vs Shri.Basanagouda Linganagouda Hosamani

Shoukat S/O Papalal Maldar Vs Shankar S/O Siddappa Hebbali

Sri. Somashekhar S/O Basavantappa Gadag Vs Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies

Abdulkhadar S/O Babajansab Hulageri Vs Umesh S/O Channabasayya Malimath