Disposed

Shri Bhimappa S/O Basappa Sutagatti v. Shri Basappa Aliyas Shivalingappa S/O Siddappa Sutagatti

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2023WP/100572/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by defendant seeking to quash an order permitting plaintiff to use a specific road for transporting sugarcane. Held order is spent as crop already transported. Petition disposed without opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the impugned order regarding road usage for sugarcane transport has spent itself.

Shri Bhimappa S/O Basappa Sutagatti Vs Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7413 WP No. 100572 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 100572 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI BHIMAPPA S/O. BASAPPA SUTAGATTI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DEVEGOUDANAHATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶12

SHRI BASAPPA @ SHIVALINGAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA SUTAGATTI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND DRIVER, R/O: DEVEGOUDANAHATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI P.V. GUNJAL AND SRI M.M. HIRALINGANNAVAR, ADVOCATES)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO KINDLY PASS AN ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 17/01/2023, ON I.A. NO. 5 FILED UNDER ORDER 151 OF CPC, IN O.S. NO. 492/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, GOKAK AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT I.A. NO.5, VIDE ANNEXURE-C FILED UNDER ORDER 151 OF CPC FILED BY RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.492/2017.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7413 WP No. 100572 of 2023

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶21

This petition is filed by the defendant seeking to set aside the impugned order vide Annexure-D dated 17.01.2023 on I.A.No.V filed under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.492/2017 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Court, Gokak.

¶22

Petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.492/2017. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction, in which an application came to be filed i.e., I.A.No.V under Section 151 of CPC to permit the plaintiff to transport the sugar cane crop from his land to the sugar factories using the suit road marked as 'AB' for the limited purpose for transporting the sugarcane for that particular period. The application was stoutly resisted by the defendant. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court allowed the application

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7413 WP No. 100572 of 2023

¶24

I.A.No.V. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner/defendant is before this Court.

¶25

It is contended by learned counsel for the

¶26

petitioner that the order passed by the Trial Court is illegal as the petitioner/defendant was objecting to use of the road as in the suit road there is a crop, but the plaintiff would destroy the crop which causes hindrance to the defendant's existing sugarcane crop while transporting the sugarcane to the main road.

¶27

Be that as it may, the application came to be allowed and the fruits of the order permitting the plaintiff to transport the sugarcane from his land to the sugar factories using the suit road i.e., 'AB' is fulfilled and nothing would now survive for consideration in the case on hand with regard to said application.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent contends that pursuant to allowing the said application the plaintiff has transported the sugarcane crop from his land to the sugar factories using the suit road 'AB' and thereby the order on application is spent itself and nothing would survive for

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7413 WP No. 100572 of 2023

¶30

consideration in the petition to agitate the out come of the said order as it was ordered for the use of road by the plaintiff to transport the sugarcane crop for that particular period. So therefore, at this stage, the interference by this Court would be of no value for the petitioner/defendant as nothing further survives and the plaintiff is not inclined to use for the present. The said road as the sugarcane crop has already been transporting by using the road.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the contention put forth by the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff appears to be bonafide and requires to be considered for the reason that the fruits of the impugned order has spent itself and application was filed for particular year to transport the sugarcane using the suit road 'AB'. That being the case any interference now by this Court would be only a paper decree and which will not be useful for the petitioner and even which will not effect the plaintiff.

¶32

Both the parties submit that the main suit is pending for consideration and they would agitate the claim

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7413 WP No. 100572 of 2023

¶34

over the suit road in the suit proceedings which would have to be decided by the trial Court on recording of evidence from the parties.

¶35

Further, the impugned order clearly states that the order is passed only for the limited purposes to facilitate the plaintiff to use the road in question to transport the sugarcane crop and that any finding with regard to the results on the impugned order would not have a bearing on the main matter.

¶36

Placing the submission of learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the application was filed only for the purpose of transporting the sugarcane crop from his land to the sugar factories using the suit road for the limited purpose. The same would come to an end after the crop has been transported. Therefore, it is made clear that in view of submission of learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that it was for limited purpose for transporting the sugarcane from the land to sugar factory by using the said road 'AB' order gets spent itself for the present. According to the plaintiff, the sugarcane crop has

¶37

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7413 WP No. 100572 of 2023

¶38

been transported. Remaining aspect of the matter shall be agitated between the parties before the trial Court for any further orders. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) Writ petition stands disposed off.

¶41

(ii) In view of impugned order having spent itself and more so for reason that it was for the limited purpose for usage of road for transportation of sugarcane from the land of plaintiff to the sugar factories by using the road 'AB', it is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion or observation on the merits and de-merits of the case and use of the road by the plaintiff.

¶42

(iii) For any further orders parties shall approach the learned Civil Judge for further orders.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

CKK

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Shri Bhimappa S/O Basappa Sutagatti v. Shri Basappa Aliyas Shivalingappa S/O Siddappa Sutagatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Bhimappa S/O Basappa Sutagatti v. Shri Basappa Aliyas Shivalingappa S/O Siddappa Sutagatti

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

K T G Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital Vs the Union of India

Basappa S/O Mukkanna Swagi @ Hotti Vs Umesh S/O Basappa Swagi @ Hotti

Sri. Suresh S/O Sadashiv Purud, Vs Modinsab S/O Khajameensab Khajasab Bagawan

Smt.Neelamma W/O. Late Kenchappa Vs Sri.Karthik

Karadi Devaraj S/Ok.Kotreppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Aremallapurad Sumant S/O Kannappa Vs the State of Karnataka