Disposed

Abdulkhadar S/O Sadroddin Hundekar v. Venkappa S/O Laxmappa Kalakeri

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023WP/113947/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed to quash an order revoking an ex-parte injunction. The High Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo and directed the trial court to consider the case on merits without being influenced by previous interlocutory observations.

What did the court decide?

Directing parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit.

Abdulkhadar S/O Sadroddin Hundekar Vs Venkappa… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14438 WP No. 113947 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 113947 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ABDULKHADAR S/O SADRODDIN HUNDEKAR AGE.72 YEARS, OCC. MECHANICAL R/O KASAB, NEAR BASAWESHWAR CIRCLE NARGUND, PIN-582207 TQ. NARGUND, DIST. GADAG

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. D L LADKHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

VENKAPPA S/O LAXMAPPA KALAKERI AGE.50 YEARS, COC. KSRTC DRIVER R/O NARGUND, PIN-582207, DIST. GADAG

¶14

YAMANMAPPA S/O LAXMAPPA KALAKERI AGE.48 YEARS, OCC. KSRTC DRIVER R/O NARGUND, PIN-572207, DIST. GADAG

¶15

Digitally signed bySHIVAKUMAR SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH HIREMATH Date: 2023.12.15 12:05:55 +0530

¶16

(BY SRI.B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO:-A. BE PLEASED TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GADAG IN MA.NO.6/2018, DATED 01.08.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14438 WP No. 113947 of 2019

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The plaintiff has filed this petition assailing the order dated 01.08.2019 passed in M.A.No.6/2018 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, whereby, it has allowed the Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the defendant No.1 by setting aside the order dated 26.03.2018 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.41/2017 by the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner has filed suit against the defendants praying decree by granting the permanent injunction against the defendant and not to obstruct peaceful possession over the suit schedule property by restraining defendants from encroachment of the suit property by constructing wall. The trial Court considering the prima-facie case, ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. The defendants have entered appearance, filed written statement putting further their defence. Being aggrieved by the order of granting injunction, defendants have filed appeal in M.A.No.6/2018 before the Senior Civil

¶24

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14438 WP No. 113947 of 2019

¶25

Judge, Gadag. The said Miscellaneous Appeal came to be allowed by reversing the order of the trial Court.

¶26

The plaintiff has raised various contentions in the suit, they are reiterated in the present petition.

¶27

This Court while issuing emergent notice on 18.10.2019, has directed the parties to maintain status-quo and the said interim order is continued to be in operation till the date. It is not in dispute that, the said suit is pending consideration from 2017, and no much progress has taken place. The petitioner is required to establish his case by producing cogent and acceptable evidence before the trial Court to consider his prayer for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. The interim order initially granted by the trial Court on 21.04.2017 was in force till passing of the order dated 20.04.2018 by the appellate Court and thereafter, this Court in the present proceedings on 18.10.2019 has directed the parties to maintain status-quo, in view of the same, the interest of justice would be met if the interim order granted by this Court on 18.10.2019 is

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14438 WP No. 113947 of 2019

¶30

continued till the disposal of the suit by permitting the parties to continue the proceedings before the trial Court.

¶31

This Court without expressing any opinion on the observation recorded by both the Courts below is of the considered view that, it would be appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status-quo till disposal of the suit and the trial Court is directed to consider the case of the parties on its merits in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observation recorded by it on the interlocutory application and the finding recorded by the appellate Court in its order dated 20.04.2018.

¶32

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status-quo till the disposal of the suit.

¶33

No orders as to costs.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

SVH

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Abdulkhadar S/O Sadroddin Hundekar v. Venkappa S/O Laxmappa Kalakeri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulkhadar S/O Sadroddin Hundekar v. Venkappa S/O Laxmappa Kalakeri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Durgamma W/O. Irappa Naik Vs Bibi Shaharbanu W/O. Shabandri Hasan Kojapo

Shri. Donnepudi Subhaschandra Bose Vs Smt. Hemalatha W/O Late Basavaraj Venkatapur

Ms Horanabi Vs Mr.Dadesab

Girijadevi W/O Shivanand Dandin Vs Mallappa S/O Veerappa Halakatti

Dr Vikram S/O Anil Hegde Vs Dr Girija Kokila Hegde

Syed Maqdoom Hussain S/O. Syed Chand Peera Vs Shameedsab S/O.Martujasab Nadagouda