Dismissed

Chandrashekhar S/O Shiddayya Hiremath v. Fakkirappa S/O Kariyappa Vaddellappanavar

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2023WP/100405/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for police aid to enforce a temporary injunction. The court held police protection is exceptional and requires specific justification, which was absent here. The Civil Court's order stands.

What did the court decide?

The application for police protection to enforce the temporary injunction was dismissed as the petitioner failed to make out a case warranting such exceptional relief.

Chandrashekhar S/O Shiddayya Hiremath Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100405 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100405 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O SHIDDAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VEERSBHSDRESHWARA NILAYA, NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE, VINAYAK NAGAR, NAVALURU, TQ. DIST. DHARWAD

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ARUN L NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

FAKKIRAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA VADDELLAPPANAVAR AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. TALWAR ONI, NAVALUR, TQ. DIST. DHARWAD.

¶14

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶15

SRI YALLAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA VADDELLAPPANAVAR AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TALWAR ONI, NAVALUR, TQ. DIST. DHARWAD

¶16

SRI MARUTI S/O KARIYAPPA VADDELLAPUR AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TALWAR ONI, NAVALUR TQ. DIST. DHARWAD

¶17

SRI NAGAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA VADDELLAPPANAVAR AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

¶18

¶19

WP No. 100405 of 2023

¶20

R/O. TALWAR ONI, NAVALUR,

¶21

TQ.DIST. DHARWAD

¶22

SRI. MAHANTESH S/O FAKKIRAPPA VADDELLAPPANAVAR AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN, R/O. TALWAR ONI, NAVALUR, TQ. DIST. DHARWAD.

¶23

SRI SANTOSH S/O FAKKIRAPPA VADDELLAPPANAVAR AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC, NOT KNOWN, R/O. TALWAR ONI, NAVALUR, TQ. DIST. DHARWAD

¶24

SMT BALAVVA W/O FAKKIRAPPA VADDELLAPPANAVAR AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TALWAR ONI, NAVALUR, TQ. DIST. DHARWAD

¶25

SMT BHIMAVVA D/O MARUTI VADDELLAPPANAVAR AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TALWAR ONI, NAVALUR, TQ. DIST. DHARWAD

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. II COURT, DHARWAD DATED 21.01.2022 IN O.S. NO. 248/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PER ANNEXURE-F FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF SEEKING POLICE AID FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 18/11/2016 CONFIRMED IN M.A. NO.44/2016 DATED 17-06-2017.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 100405 of 2023

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order of the Court below on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct the Police Inspector, Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad to enforce the order of temporary injunction. The said application came to be rejected by the Court below. The plaintiff has knocked the doors of this Court assailing the order of the learned Judge in declining to grant police protection.

¶33

The plaintiff has instituted a bare suit for injunction. The court below has granted interim injunction thereby restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

¶34

In the affidavit filed in support of the application,

¶35

this Court would find that there is lot of ambiguity and vagueness. No materials are placed on record, which would

¶36

¶37

WP No. 100405 of 2023

¶38

warrant interference at the hands of this Court. If the interim order is passed restraining the defendants not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession, the question of enforcing interim injunction at the intervention of police officer is unwarranted. It is a trite law that the police protection has to be extended in exceptional cases. The plaintiff has to make out a case for police protection. The learned Judge has rightly rejected the application by holding that the plaintiff is at liberty to seek remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶39

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Chandrashekhar S/O Shiddayya Hiremath v. Fakkirappa S/O Kariyappa Vaddellappanavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar S/O Shiddayya Hiremath v. Fakkirappa S/O Kariyappa Vaddellappanavar

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

Veeranagouda S/O Devanagouda Patil, Vs Bheemappa S/O Yallappa Talwar

Shri Shivanand S/O Ramu Dadde Vs Smt. Renuka W/O Shivanand Dadde

Sri. Yallappa S/O Ramachandrappa Tadas Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

M/S Raghuveer Enterprises Represented Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari

Smt. Gangawwa W/O Parappa Kadapatti Vs Smt. Jayashree D/O Annappa Kanagond

Mohammadhanif S/O Shabbir Attar Vs the State of Karnataka