Disposed

Suryakant S/O Shivalingayya Muchandi Hiremath v. Basavaraj S/O Nagappa Giddanavar

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2023WP/101686/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging an appellate order that set aside a temporary injunction. The court directed the trial court to decide pending interim applications within one month while maintaining the appellate status quo order for that duration.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to dispose of IA Nos. 1 and 2 within one month; appellate status quo order to continue for one month.

Suryakant S/O Shivalingayya Muchandi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6560 WP No. 101686 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 101686 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SURYAKANT S/O. SHIVALINGAYYA MUCHANDI HIREMATH, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BENACHINAMARADI, TQ: GOKAK-591 112.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI H.M.DHARIGOND AND SMT.SANGEETA F. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATES.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BASAVARAJ

¶13

S/O. NAGAPPA GIDDANAVAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BENACHINAMARADI, TQ: GOKAK-591 112.

¶14

K M SOMASHEKAR High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶15

SMT. NINGAVVA, W/O. CHANDRAPPA GIDDANAVAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BENACHINAMARADI, TQ: GOKAK-591 112.

¶16

MAHANTESH S/O. CHANDRAPPA GIDDANAVAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BENACHINAMARADI, TQ: GOKAK-591 112.

¶17

VEERUPAXI S/O. CHANDRAPPA GIDDANAVAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6560 WP No. 101686 of 2022

¶20

R/O: BENACHINAMARADI, TQ: GOKAK-591 112.

¶21

SMT. SUSHILAVVA W/O. IRAPPA YARAGATTI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BENACHINAMARADI, TQ: GOKAK-591 112.

¶22

SUMITRA D/O. CHANDRAPPA GIDDANAVAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BENACHINAMARADI, TQ: GOKAK-591 112.

¶23

RAMESH S/O. IRAPPA GIDDANAVAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BENACHINAMARADI, TQ: GOKAK-591 112.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE.)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.02.2022, PASSED IN M.A.NO.1/2022, PASSED BY I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, VIDE ANNEXURE-K, ETC.,.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard Sri H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for

¶30

petitioner and Sri Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel

¶31

for respondents No.1 to 7.

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6560 WP No. 101686 of 2022

¶33

This petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff

¶34

seeking to quash order dated 28.02.2022, passed in M.A.No.1/2022 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, vide Annexure-K.

¶35

The petitioner filed a suit against the respondents and along with the plaint he filed application in I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an exparte order of temporary injunction. The trial Court granted an exparte ad-interim temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. Thereafter the respondents on appearance filed objections to the application and I.A.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 read with section 151 of CPC for vacating the said exparte interim order of injunction. During the pendency of the applications I.A.Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court, respondents filed Miscellaneous Appeal in M.A.No.1/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, challenging the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff.

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6560 WP No. 101686 of 2022

¶37

The I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, heard the

¶38

matter and allowed the appeal of the respondents, set aside the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff and directed the trial Court to dispose of the application I.A.Nos.1 and 2 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter when the matter was remitted back, it is a case of the plaintiff that the respondents have been dragging on the matter and taking adjournments on one ground or the other despite there being a specific direction of the First Appellate Court to dispose of the applications within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Aggrieved by the said order of the First Appellate Court, petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court.

¶39

It is the contention of the learned counsel for plaintiff that the suit is filed by him for perpetual injunction wherein the temporary injunction application has been filed and the same has been allowed and temporary injunction was granted. During the pendency of the

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6560 WP No. 101686 of 2022

¶41

application for vacating the temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC, the respondents/defendants approached the First Appellate Court and got the order set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for disposal of both the applications in a time bound manner.

¶42

The grievance of the petitioner-plaintiff is that the First Appellate Court setting aside the order of the trial Court is bad in law. The same could have been heard on merits and at the most it could have remitted the matter for consideration of both the applications rather than setting aside the order. In pursuance to the setting aside of the order of injunction by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff is before this Court and the order of stay of the First Appellate Court has been passed, vide order dated 22.04.2022.

¶43

In view of the stay granted by this Court, nothing is proceeding before the trial Court. It does not make much sense in keeping this matter pending and the

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6560 WP No. 101686 of 2022

¶45

learned counsels of both the parties fairly submit that if the matter is sent back and remitted to the trial Court for disposal of the applications in I.A.Nos.1 and 2, in a time bound manner retaining the order which is passed herein as an a interim measure, the same would meet the ends of justice of both the parties, so also saves the time of the parties to go on with the main proceedings.

¶46

The fair submissions of both the learned counsels are taken on record and appreciated as it neither serves the purpose of the plaintiff nor the defendants in keeping this matter pending here with an order of stay of the Appellate Court's order and the trial Court not proceeding further in the matter. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) This writ petition is disposed of with a direction

¶49

to the learned trial Judge to dispose of the applications I.A.Nos.1 and 2 pending before it, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in

¶50

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6560 WP No. 101686 of 2022

¶51

accordance with law, on providing opportunities to both the parties.

¶52

ii) In the meanwhile, the order of statusquo

¶53

granted by the First Appellate Court shall continue which shall be in operation for a period of one month.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

MRK

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Suryakant S/O Shivalingayya Muchandi Hiremath v. Basavaraj S/O Nagappa Giddanavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryakant S/O Shivalingayya Muchandi Hiremath v. Basavaraj S/O Nagappa Giddanavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Narayan S/O a Kamat Vs South Central Railway

Anand Social Club Lokapur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hanumanthappa S/O Siddhappa Shivanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Maharshi Enterprise Vs the Karnataka Industrial Areas

Devappa S/O Sannasiddappa Ganter Vs the State of Karnataka

Bagalkote Cement and Industries Limited, Bagalkote Vs Bagalkote Town Development Authority