The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking to quash an order rejecting an application for police protection to enforce an injunction in a civil suit regarding property management.
The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned order of the trial court was upheld.
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 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 18762 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: high court of karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARESH BHANDARY T .,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2017 ON I.A.NO.8 IN O.S.NO.648/2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI ANNEXURE-F ALLOW I.A.NO.8 IN O.S.NO.648/2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC UDUPI VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Plaintiffs in OS No.648 of 2016 on the file of the learned
III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, are seeking to quash the order dated 20.01.2017 dismissing IA No.8 filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking to provide police protection to enforce the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:5687 WP No. 18762 of 2018
the petitioners and Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Perused the materials on record.
of 2016 seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants.
NC: 2024:KHC:5687 WP No. 18762 of 2018
IA No.2 was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking to retrain the defendants from trespassing over the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and also from interfering with the management of the same. The said application came to be allowed vide order dated 10.11.2016 subject to conditions. The said order discloses that several conditions were imposed on the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not aware as to whether the said conditions were compiled with or not.
and other particulars as to when the defendants have made efforts to trespass over the same or tried to interfere in the management of the properties. It is also pertinent to note that, the petitioners have not filed any application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC complaining disobedience of the order. Moreover, it is not made known as to whether the conditions imposed on the plaintiffs while allowing IA No.2 are complied or not. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention taken by the petitioners. The Trial Court is justified in dismissing the application.
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed .
SdJUDGE
SPV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction to quash the trial court's dismissal of an application for police help to enforce an injunction order.
Whether the petitioners adequately proved disobedience of the injunction order or compliance with attached conditions.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs Rajeshwari B Shetty
Smt Renuka Vishwantha Rai
M/s Durga International
Mr Guruprasad Shetty
Mr Jogu Shetty
Smt Jayanthi Shetty
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
