Dismissed

Sri M N Srinivasa, v. Siddaraju

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/18621/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged concurrent trial and appellate orders rejecting his temporary injunction application in a suit over suit schedule property. The High Court held Article 227 jurisdiction is not invocable against such concurrent orders absent an extraordinary case, permitted peripheral applications like plastering leave to the court below, and rejected the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri M N Srinivasa, Vs Siddaraju — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41676 WP No. 18621 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 18621 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M N SRINIVASA, S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.1514/1210, WARD NO. 17, PETE, VAKKALIGARA BEEDI, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. BHADRINATH R.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SIDDARAJU,

¶12

S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. SHARADA W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶14

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶16

SMT. CHAYAMANI W/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶17

SMT. HARSHITHA D/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶18

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT WARD NO.13M, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41676 WP No. 18621 of 2024

¶20

SRI. PRAKASH, S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶21

SMT. SHYALAJA W/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENTS NO.6 & 7 ARE R/AT DASANADODDI VILLAGE, B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430.

¶23

SRI. NAVEEN, S/O LATE CHANNAVEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶24

SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶25

RESPONDENTS NO. 8 & 9 ARE R/AT MEGALAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.BHUSHANI KUMAR.,ADV., FOR R2, R3, R6 TO R9; V.C.O DATED 16.10.2024 R1 IS D/W

¶28

R4 & R5 ARE SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/04/2024 IN MA NO. 07 OF 2023 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALAVALLI AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/02/2023 IN OS NO. 483 OF 2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALAVALLI AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO. 1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:41676 WP No. 18621 of 2024

¶32

RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS / RESPONDENTS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN OS NO. 483 OF 2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALAVALLI.

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

This petition seeks to lay a challenge to the concurrent orders passed on plaintiffs’ applications. Therefore, learned trial Judge rejected the application and against that, appeal was preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that also met the same fate. Ordinarily, in concurrent orders of the kind, a very limited supervisory jurisdiction vested u/a 227 of the Constitution is not invocable, unless an extraordinary case is made out which is not so made out in this case.

¶37

However, any other peripheral remedy is

¶38

required such as the leave for plastering of structure, etc., it is open to the petitioner to make an appropriate

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41676 WP No. 18621 of 2024

¶40

application to the court below and the same shall be considered expeditiously without being much influenced by the impugned orders and subject to reasonable conditions.

¶41

In view of the above, the Petition is rejected

¶42

All pending applications pale into insignificance.

¶43

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶44

cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri M N Srinivasa, v. Siddaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri M N Srinivasa, v. Siddaraju

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

Sri.Shailaja Vs Srinivasa

M Lakshmana Vs Dalvoy Anglo Sanskrit School Committee

Mrs. M. Anbammal Vs Mr. M. Ashok Kumar @ Jayaram

Sri Andhanaiah Vs Sri Siddalingaiah

Sri Nanjappa Vs Sri M B Nagaraju

Sri B Nanjundappa Vs Smt Aiysha Khan