Dismissed

Hanamant S/O Laxman Dharigoud v. Irawwa W/O Rachappa Dharogoud

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024WP/100833/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of an order rejecting police protection application was dismissed. High Court observed it was a private dispute where interim injunction existed, making police protection inappropriate and noting that remedy under Order IIIIX Rule 2A CPC was the correct path.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Hanamant S/O Laxman Dharigoud Vs Irawwa W/O… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7631 WP No. 100833 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 100833 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

HANAMANT S/O. LAXMAN DHARIGOUD, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶6

MAHADEVI W/O. BASAPPA DHARIGOUD, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶7

…PETITIONERS

¶8

(BY SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

IRAWWA W/O. RACHAPPA DHARIGOUD, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶11

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶12

Digitally signed byYASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.06.15 12:09:43 +0530

¶13

SANGAPPA S/O. RACHAPPA DHARIGOUD, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶14

LAXMAN S/O. RACHAPPA DHARIGOUD, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶15

KAMALAWA W/O. GURALING LAKKAPPAGOL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7631 WP No. 100833 of 2024

¶17

MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶18

SHANKAR S/O. RACHAPPA DAHRIGOUD, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶19

AKSHATA D/O. RACHAPPA DHARIGOUD, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶20

MAHALINGAPPA S/O. HANAMANT LATUR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶21

MARUTI S/O. HANAMANT LATUR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶22

PARASAPPA S/O. HANAMANT LATUR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶23

YALLAPPA S/O. HANAMANT LATUR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶24

YALLAWWA W/O. SADASHIV SASALATTI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KESARAGOPPA, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶25

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7631 WP No. 100833 of 2024

¶26

BANGAREWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA BELAGALI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KESARAGOPPA, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶27

TIPPANNA S/O. SATTEPPA LATUR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶28

MALLAPPA S/O. SATTEPPA LATUR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶29

CHANNAPPA S/O. SATTEPPA LATUR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GARDEN LAND, AKKIMARADI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. D.M. MALLI, ADV. FOR R7-R15; R1-R6 DISPENSED WITH)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-G DATED 02-01-2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BANAHATTI ON I.A. NO.3 IN O.S. NO.247/2022.

¶33

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

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7631 WP No. 100833 of 2024

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The captioned petition is filed by the plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge on I.A No.3 filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “CPC”) seeking a police protection and also for implementing the order of the learned Judge passed on I.A No.1.

¶37

The learned Judge has rejected the application on two counts. Firstly, the defendants have preferred a miscellaneous appeal in M.A No.4/2023 and secondly the ground on which, the learned Judge has rejected is, the petitioner has to avail efficacious remedy by filing a petition under Order IIIIX Rule 2A of CPC.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the order under challenge.

¶39

Grant of police protection is permissible only in extraordinary circumstances. The Court’s discretion to grant police protection has to be sparingly used in exceptional cases. Only in exceptional cases, where the plaintiffs are able to

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7631 WP No. 100833 of 2024

¶41

substantiate as to why police protection is sought. In the present case on hand, trial Court has granted injunction in favour of plaintiffs and the defendants are restrained by way of

¶42

an interim injunction from interfering with the petitioners’/plaintiffs’ peaceful possession.

¶43

In the aid of this interim injunction, there can’t be police protection in respect of a private dispute between two individuals. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no application to the present set of facts. Police force cannot be utilized in an individual dispute more particularly when the lis is pending before competent Civil Court. If the petitioner has already initiated proceedings for disobedience by filing a petition under Order IIIIX Rule 2A of CPC, that may act as a deterrence against the defendants. However, the learned Judge is bound to expedite the enquiry on a petition filed under Order IIIIX Rule 2A of CPC. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Writ Petition is devoid of merits and

¶46

accordingly stands dismissed .

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7631 WP No. 100833 of 2024

¶48

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

accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

PMP

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87

Hanamant S/O Laxman Dharigoud v. Irawwa W/O Rachappa Dharogoud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanamant S/O Laxman Dharigoud v. Irawwa W/O Rachappa Dharogoud

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

Gururaj Narasimha Das Vs the State of Karnataka

Gurumurthy Basavraj Navalgundmath, Vs Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporaotion

Shri Erappa S/O Channabasappa Naregal Vs Smt Sudha W/O Erappa Naregal

Bhimasen Alias Bhimappa S/O Balappa Alias Balu Gurav Vs Smt. Shanta Alias Shantawwa W/O Sattyappa Gurav

Hanmantsingh Urf Hanumantappa Shankarappa Nandihalli Urf Nandilli Vs Smt. Lalitabai Alias Yallavva W/O Laxmaaansingh Jamadar

Smt. Basawwa W/O. Fakkirappa Heggeri, Vs Sri. Kalllappa S/O. Rayappa Gali Alias Madari