Disposed

Smt. Rajeshwari W/O Munichandrababu v. Smt. Nagaveni W/O Venkataramana

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2023WP/100241/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an appellate order dismissing a temporary injunction in a temple dispute. The Court reserved its opinion on merits and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months. Impugned order affirmed. Interim order dissolved.

Smt. Rajeshwari W/O Munichandrababu Vs Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100241 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100241 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.RAJESHWARI, W/O MUNICHANDRABABU, AGE: ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DOOR NO.89/A, S.G.COLLEGE ROAD, NEAR SAI HOSPITAL, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583103.

¶10

SMT.KRISHTAMMA W/O SUBBARAYUDU, AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. POOJARI ARCHAKA R/O. DOOR NO.89/A, S.G.COLLEGE ROAD, NEAR SAI HOSPITAL, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583103.

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶12

SMT.P.BHAGYAMMA W/O CHALAPATI, HINDU POOJARI ARCHAKA OF SREE KANAKA DURGAMMA TEMPLE, R/O. 3^RD CROSS, LEFT SIDE, NEAR BAGICHA HOTEL, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583103.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT.SUNITHA P.KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT.NAGAVENI W/O VENKATARAMANA, AGE. ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. POOJARI ARCHAKA OF SREE KANAKA DURGAMMA TEMPLE,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 100241 of 2023

¶19

R/O. 3^RD CROSS, LEFT SIDE, NEAR BAGICHA HOTEL, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583103.

¶20

SMT.DURGADEVI W/O KAMALAKARANAIDU, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. POOJARI ARCHAKA OF SREE KANAKA DURGAMMA TEMPLE, R/O. 3^RD CROSS, LEFT SIDE, NEAR BAGICHA HOTEL, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583103.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI HARSH DESAI & SRI C.S.SHETTAR, ADVS. FOR R1; SRI T.M.NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶23

SRI SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 35/2022 DATED 03/12/2022 PASSED BY 1^ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & BELLARY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 03.12.2022 passed in M.A.No.35/2022 by the I Addl.Senior Civil Judge at Ballari whereby the aforesaid appeal preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed by the first Appellate Court.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 100241 of 2023

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶30

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶31

The material on record discloses that the petitioners-plaintiffs instituted a suit in O.S.No.131/2021 on the file of IV Addl.Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ballari for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the subject temple. That the suit is being contested by the respondents-defendants along with the suit petitioners-plaintiffs filed an applicationI.A.No.2 for temporary injunction which came to be allowed vide order dated 29.09.2022. However on an appeal preferred by respondent No.1 in M.A.No.35/2022, the first Appellate Court set aside the said order passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of present petition.

¶32

Though several contentions have been urged by both the petitioners as well as respondents in support of their respective claims over the subject temple since the material on record indicates that several contentious issues and disputed questions of fact and law arise for consideration between the

¶33

¶34

WP No. 100241 of 2023

¶35

parties, which would require to be adjudicated only after fullfledged trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose off this petition without interfering with the impugned order and by directing the trial Court to dispose off the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded by the first Appellate Court as well as by the trial Court in its order dated 29.09.2022.

¶36

All rival contentions between the parties kept open

¶37

and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶38

It is needless to state that in view of disposal of the

¶39

petition, the interim order passed in the present petition would stand automatically dissolved.

¶40

SD JUDGE

¶41

CLK

Smt. Rajeshwari W/O Munichandrababu v. Smt. Nagaveni W/O Venkataramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajeshwari W/O Munichandrababu v. Smt. Nagaveni W/O Venkataramana

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

Jayalakshmi W/O. Late M Sakrappa @ Shankrappa Vs the Secretary

Smt. Basamma W/O Shankrappa Timmaraddi Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri. a. Veeranagouda S/O Late a Gavisiddanagouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Karabasanagouda S/O Bapugouda Huded Vs the Department of Backward Classes

Smt Yallawwa Pavadappa Hullannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Soudagar Wood Industries Vs the Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank