Dismissed

Sri. Ningachari v. Sri. Prasanna

Karnataka HC13 Apr 2022WP/2446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed this Writ Petition challenging a trial Court order refusing police protection for implementing a temporary injunction. The Court found the trial Court's decision reasonable due to the plaintiff's lack of possession and the defendant's ongoing cultivation of the land in a pending partition suit.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed holding the impugned order of the trial Court did not contain any error.

Sri. Ningachari Vs Sri. Prasanna — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2446 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

SRI NINGACHARI S/O LATE KALACHARI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT KALLAHALLI VILLAGE BYLAHALLI POST SALAGAME HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573 217.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI M G RAVISHA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND

¶10

SRI PRASANNA S/O LATE KALACHARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT KALLAHALLI VILLAGE BYLAHALLI POST SALAGAME HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573 217.

¶11

….RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15^TH DECEMBER, 2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN IN ORIGINAL

¶13

¶14

SUIT NO.662 OF 2017 ON THE APPLICATION (IA NO.VI) I.E., ANNEXURE- L AND ETC.,

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed by plaintiff in Original Suit No. 662 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional City Civil Judge and JMFC Hassan, challenging the order dated 15^th December, 2021 rejecting IA.6 filed by plaintiff under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶18

Plaintiff has filed suit for relief of temporary injunction and the trial Court has granted temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with suit schedule property as per the order passed on IA.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants entered appearance and contested the matter by filing written statement. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed IA.6 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking police protection to implement the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court. The said application was resisted by defendants.

¶19

¶20

The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by impugned order dated 15^th December, 2021 dismissed the application and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has presented this Writ Petition.

¶21

Sri Ravisha, M.G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the trial Court has granted interim order on 12^th April, 2018 restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property and in this regard, the plaintiff has approached the police seeking protection to implement the order of temporary injunction by way of complaint produced at as Annexure-G and H, however, the same has not been considered by trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff.

¶22

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on careful examination of finding recorded by the trial Court, the same would indicate that the defendant has filed Original Suit No. 513 of 2019 before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the joint family property

¶23

¶24

and the said suit is pending consideration before the trial Court. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule property and the defendant is cultivating the suit schedule property and growing crops in the schedule land and accordingly declined to entertain IA.6 filed by plaintiff under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. On careful consideration of the finding recorded at paragraph 13 of the impugned order, it could be seen that the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that there are two counter complaints by either of the parties and considering the fact that the defendant has already planted crops in the suit schedule property, I am of the view that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly petition is devoid of merits and hence dismissed.

¶25

Sd/JUDGE

¶26

lnn

Sri. Ningachari v. Sri. Prasanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ningachari v. Sri. Prasanna

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

Sri Mohammed Younus Vs Sri Mohammed Ayub

Sri Muthuraya Reddy Vs Smt Sudha K

Sri Doddanarayanappa Vs Sri Gangappa

Sri K Maligappa @ Malligappa Vs Sri Prakash B D

Lokesha Vs Eregowda

Gokaldas Images Private Limited Vs Aries Agro - Vet Associates (Pvt ) Limited