Writ petition challenging concurrent orders granting interim injunction in a property suit dismissed. Bench held interim orders to be tested during trial and refused quashing of lower courts' decision.
Writ petition for quashing of interim injunction orders dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.3833 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.K.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKA KADIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT KAMAINAPALYA KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560060
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.B.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI.P.JAYARAM S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT KAMAINAPALYA KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560060
…..RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2021 PASSED BY THE IX ADDL.
2
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL IN MA NO.12/2020 IN ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the appellant-defendant questioning the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below in granting interim injunction in favour of the respondent - plaintiff.
3
exercised discretion in granting interim injunction in favour of the respondent - plaintiff. The said order was questioned in an appeal in M.A.No.12/2020. The Appellate Court having examined the order under challenge and prima-facie materials has concurred with the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. These two concurrent orders are under challenge.
petitioner-defendant, perused the both orders and also pleadings of the parties.
prima-facie case has produced RTCs, which clearly reveal that the petitioner's father name is mutated in revenue records from the year 1994-95. Even in the cultivator's column, after the death of the plaintiff's
4
father, the name of the plaintiff is reflected. The respondent - plaintiff further produced the copy of the partition deed indicating that there is an inter-se partition in the family and suit schedule property was allotted to his share. Referring to these prima-facie materials, the learned Judge has granted interim injunction and the said order is affirmed by the Appellate Court.
5
bound to grant some protection to preserve the property. However, the interim injunction granted by the Courts below has to be tested during the full fledged trial.
that both the Courts have not examined the averments made in the written statement in regard to specific denial in regard to extent, boundaries and measurements of the suit schedule property cannot be considered at this juncture. However, it would be open for the petitioner - defendant to lead rebuttal evidence to non-suit the plaintiff.
Any observations made by both Courts below and this Court would be confined to the orders on an interim application and would have no bearing after conclusion of the trial while deciding the case on merits. Keeping all the contentions raised by the
6
petitioner - defendant in the written statement open, the writ petition stands dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent orders of Courts below granting interim injunction in a property suit should be quashed.
Whether the adequacy of prima facie case in an interim injunction application warrants adjudication in a writ petition.
SRI.K.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKA KADIRAPPA
SRI.P.JAYARAM S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
