In this writ petition under Article 227, the High Court disposed of the filing by observing that any construction by respondents on the disputed property is subject to the outcome of the underlying suit for permanent injunction.
The writ petition is disposed of; any construction by respondents is subject to the outcome of the suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 12655 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by A K CHANDRIKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RESIDING AT NO.25, DODDAMALLE VILLAGE TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT -563137 .
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADV.)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PAVAN N., ADV. FOR SRI. ASHOK B PATIL, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MA NO.3/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE AT MALUR AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED IN MA NO.3/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE AT MALUR VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners, legal representatives of original plaintiff in O.S.No.25/2022 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC at Malur are before this Court, questioning the judgment dated 22.04.2022 in M.A.No.03/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Malur confirming order dated 16.03.2022 in O.S.No.25/2022 rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain the respondents/defendants from putting up any construction on the suit schedule property.
petitioners/plaintiffs and learned counsel Sri.Pavan N for respondents/defendants. Perused the writ petition papers.
Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the written statement filed by the respondents/defendants particularly paragraph 10 which states that the defendants laid foundation over their property and are stocking all the construction materials. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the Appellate Court on the ground that the petitioners/appellants have not made out prima-facie case and on the ground that the appellants have not come to the Appellate Court with clean hands rejected the appeal. Learned counsel would submit that since the respondents/defendants have completed construction, he would submit that respondents/defendants shall not claim any equity. Learned counsel Sri.Raju would submit that the writ petition be disposed of by observing that any construction would be subject to outcome of the suit.
The writ petition is disposed of.
It is further made clear that the construction, if any by the respondents/defendants would be subject to
outcome of the suit.
Sd/JUDGE
MPK CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the writ petition questioning the judgment rejecting a temporary injunction application.
Whether to permit construction on the disputed property pending the outcome of the underlying suit.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Gowramma and Others
Sri Narayanaswamy and Others
S.G.Pandit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
