Dismissed

Sayarabi W/O Mahibub Jamadar v. Shivaji Laxman Garade

Karnataka HC26 Feb 2024WP/105965/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the trial court's order granting an interim injunction and police protection in a civil suit regarding property dispute. The court held that the trial court was justified in allowing police protection as there was interference with peaceful possession.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sayarabi W/O Mahibub Jamadar Vs Shivaji Laxman Garade — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:4557 WP No. 105965 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 105965 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SAYARABI, W/O. MAHIBUB JAMADAR AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KAGAWAD, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶9

YASMIN, W/O ESAK JAMADAR AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KAGAWAD, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH Date: 2024.02.28 11:35:50 +0530

¶11

PARAVIN, W/O SUNED MANAGANVE AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MIRAJ, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI.

¶12

HIDAYAT MAHIBUB JAMADAR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O: KAGAWAD, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

5.. UBED MAHIBUB JAMADAR AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KAGAWAD, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI.VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:4557 WP No. 105965 of 2019

¶16

AND:

¶17

SHIVAJI LAXMAN GARADE AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CIVIL HOSPITAL QUARTERS, ROOM NO.1, NEAR COLLAGE, PANDARAPUR ROAD, MIRAJ, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI.

¶18

SAMBAJI LAXMAN GARADE AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAWADI, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI.

¶19

TANAJI LAXMAN GARADE AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAWADI, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI.

¶20

NETAJI LAXMAN GARADE AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAWADI, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI.

¶21

UMADEVI W/O. LAXMAN GARADE AGE: 81 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NARAWADI, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGALI.

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:4557 WP No. 105965 of 2019

¶23

PARVATI W/O. RAOSAB KHOT AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ANANTAPUR, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶24

SHOBHA BHAGAWAN SHINDE AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KINNI WATER, TQ: HATAKANAGALA, DIST: KOLHAPUR.

¶25

MANGAL W/O. MALLARI PAWAR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KAGAWAD, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.CHETAN MUNNOLI AND SMT.SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.510/2015 BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ATHANI VIDE ANNEXURE-"E".

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:4557 WP No. 105965 of 2019

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.

¶33

In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 30.11.2018 in O.S. No.510/2015 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Athani, allowing the application–I.A. No.2 filed by the plaintiffs seeking police protection.

¶34

Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the plaintiffs have filed suit seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction. In the said suit, plaintiffs have filed an application seeking interim injunction against the defendants and the Trial Court, by order dated 05.03.2018, allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, directing the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs. In the meanwhile, the defendants have interfered with the

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:4557 WP No. 105965 of 2019

¶36

possession of the plaintiffs and as such, the plaintiffs filed

¶37

I.A. No.2 seeking police protection.

¶38

Having taken note of the factual aspects on record, the Trial Court has granted injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property and, in that view of the mater, allowing the application made by the plaintiffs seeking police protection is just and proper, which cannot be interfered with in this writ petition by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of

¶39

the Constitution of India.

¶40

Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

KMS

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sayarabi W/O Mahibub Jamadar v. Shivaji Laxman Garade

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sayarabi W/O Mahibub Jamadar v. Shivaji Laxman Garade

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok S/O Balayya Guttedar Vs Smt. Sumitrabi and Ors.

Shantavva and Ors. Vs Subhash and Anr.

The Chief Engineer Knnl Ipc Zone and Anr. Vs Veerendra @ Veeresh S/O Chandrakanth and Ors.

Vijayakumar S/O Revappa Chikkoppa Vs Parappa S/O Revappa Chikkoppa

Shri. Mohmedali Mohmedgous Hanchinamani Vs Shri. Jainulla Abedin Khader Hanchinamani

Shri.Basavaraj P Pujar @ Gorappanavar Vs Siddappa P Pujar @ Gorappanavar