A writ petition challenged a trial court order directing police to assist plaintiffs in enforcing an interim injunction order in O.S.No.333/2022. The High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, declined interference, and directed the trial court to expedite its pending decision on rejection of the plaint.
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 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8078 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PETITIONERS NO.1, 3 AND 5 ARE R/AT MODURU P KOPPALU GRAMA, GAVADAGRE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 6 ARE R/AT MODURU P KOPPALU GRAMA, GAVADAGRE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.RAGHU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3, R4 R5 & R6)
NC: 2024:KHC:15962 WP No. 8078 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2024 PASSED IN O.S. NO.333/2015 ON I A NO. XVII, ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSURU. THE TRUE COPY SAID ORDER IS SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE -A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.XVII in O.S.No.333/2022 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsuru, holding as under:
“ORDER ON. I.A.No.XVII
This application filed by the applicant/plaintiff-1(f) U/sec. 151 of CPC seeking assistance of the jurisdictional police to enforce the order of this Court dated 23.06.2016.
2. The applicant/plaintiff-1(f) along with the application has also sworn an affidavit, wherein it is the contention that, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to the schedule property. After filing of the suit the defendants have interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. The plaintiff had filed the application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC to restrain the defendants interference over the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the schedule property. The Hon'ble court on perusal of the documents vide order by 23.06.2016 passed an order to restrain them or their agents till disposal of the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:15962 WP No. 8078 of 2024
The defendants filed a M.A No.16/2016 before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Hunsur and same was dismissed. Thereafter the defendants against the order have filed the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P No.75/2019(G.M-C.P.C) and same also was dismissed by the court dated 30.03.2023.
3. It is also the contention that, the defendants family members, agents are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property on 29.05.2023. The plaintiff gave a complaint against the defendants before the Hunsur Rural Police Station seeking protection, on the basis of orders by this Hon'ble Court but the S.H.O of the Hunsur Rural Police station directed the plaintiff to obtain police protection order by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to allow the application.
4. On the other hand, the counsel for the defendants has filed objection statement and contended that, the contention raised in the affidavit para No.1 to 4 are all false. The written statement shall be read as part and parcel of the objection. The defendants further stated that the plaint averments are all false. The application filed by the plaintiff seeking police protection by the defendants is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as sought in the application. The plaintiff is not in possession of the schedule property, still got filed the suit in order to give trouble to the 1st defendant.
5. The averments stated in the para No.2 of the application are all false. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the application.
6. The plaintiff has filed the suit for Permanent Injunction against the defendants on 05.08.2015. Before filing
NC: 2024:KHC:15962 WP No. 8078 of 2024
the suit the plaintiff has filed petition before ADLR for effecting haddubasth and phode the survey authorities have issued a notice that, they would visit the spot in order to measure the schedule property on 24.06.2015. As per the survey the kathedars in Sy.No.220 are not in possession of the property. In Sy.No.34 the 1st defendant wife Gowramma, Nagarajegowda and Ningarajegowda are in possession. As such in the presence of the villagers has stated that, the durasth of Sy.No.220 has been falsely effected and as per the possession, the survey would be effected in coming days. The survey officials have further filed a report that, as per RTC in Sy.No220 measuring 2 acre 17 guntas is standing in the name of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff nor his children are in possession of the property. The deceased 1st defendant during his life time has been in cultivation of Sy.No.34 measuring 4 acres of land. Later the Government has issued Saguvali chit with respect to 3 acres of land on 12.07.1996 and remaining 1 acre was left out. The 1st defendant has got mutated the katha in his name with respect to 3 acres of land as per grant and was in cultivation of the same without anybody interruption. In order to grab the property of 1st defendant illegally, even though the plaintiff not in possession of the schedule property got filed this false suit. As per the survey sketch the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff has to seek for declaration and delivery of possession in the suit. The 1st defendant on 10.08.2017 has filed an IA under Order 7 Rule 11(d) R/w Sec. 151 of CPC which is pending for consideration. On 21.09.2016 the 1st defendant has got filed an application seeking restrainment of the plaintiff from interfering with respect Sy.No.34 measuring 3 acres of land the said application is also pending. Therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff seeking for police help is not maintainable. Hence prays to dismiss the application.
NC: 2024:KHC:15962 WP No. 8078 of 2024
7. Heard, perused the materials available on record.
8. Now, the point that would arise for my consideration
is "Whether the application filed by the applicant / plaintiff1(f) deserves to be allowed?".
9. My findings to the above point is in the Affirmative for the following;
REASONS
10. On perusal of the application, objection and pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff has filed the above suit for the relief of Permanent Injunction.
11. On the service of the summons the defendants have appeared through the counsel and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is the contention of the defendants that, the defendants are the true owner and injunction cannot be passed against true owner. Further they have contended that, the land bearing Sy.No.34 of Moduru village was granted to the defendant No.1 under GMF scheme and thereafter on 12.07.1996 same was confirmed by the Tahasildar, Hunsur under KLG Rules and plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property. In the year 1997-98 the property was given to his wife Gowramma vide MR 10/97- 98.
12. On merits the said application U/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was allowed by restraining the LRs. of defendant No.1 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property till disposal of the suit vide order dated 23.04.2016. It is not the apprehension of the defendants that they have challenged the order before the Appellate court in Miscellaneous Appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:15962 WP No. 8078 of 2024
13. It is further contention of the plaintiff that, the defendants have filed an MA No.16/2016 before the Hon'ble Prl. Senior C.J. & J.M.F.C., Hunsur which came to be dismissed. Against the said order the defendants have filed a writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.75/2019 which was also dismissed by the court dated 30.03.2023. The defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Again on 29.05.2023 the plaintiff gave a complaint against the defendants before H.R.P.S. Hunsur seeking protection. Now the plaintiff has come up with the instant application U/sec. 151 of CPC seeking direction to the jurisdictional police for implementation of order. As this court has already restrained the defendant No.1 from interfering with the plaint schedule property. Interference by the LRs of defendant No.1 with respect to schedule property would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. On the other hand the LRS of defendant No.1 would not be put to hardship or inconvenience. Further it is the apprehension of the defendant No.1 that, he is the true owner and the schedule property granted in his favour as per GMT scheme the said fact has to be ascertained in full fledged trial. Accordingly, applicant / plaintiff-1(f) has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application filed U/s 151 of CPC. Hence, I answer the point for consideration in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
I.A. No.XVII filed by the applicant / plaintiff-1(f) under Section 151 of C.P.C is hereby allowed.
The jurisdictional police i.e., Hunsur Rural Police is hereby directed to assist the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants by enforcing the injunction order.
Further the plaintiffs shall co-operate in disposing of matter within 6 months from the date of this order.
On failure, following of the direction of this order stands vacated.”
does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and does not warrant interference of this court and accordingly, I do not find any merit in
the present petition and the same is disposed off without interfering with the impugned order. However, the Trial Court is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application for rejection of the plaint filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter
are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/JUDGE
AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's order allowing police assistance to enforce the injunction order in the suit warranted interference under Article 227?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Shekar
Smt. Shivamma
Sri Lokesh
Smt. Sundari
Sri Mahesh M.R.
Smt. Puttamma
S.R.Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
