Disposed¶49

Mahesh Shetty Thimarodi v. Smt. Meera T. Shetty

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2025WP/28038/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim injunction; temporary injunction; Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Article 227 writ petition; revision of First Appellate Court order; prima facie case; status quo; delay in filing writ petition; no prejudice; expeditious disposal of suit; release deed; revenue records; temple keys; contempt proceedings C.C.No.960/2016; Tahsildar measurement and fencing; Belthangady; Sy.No.120-4B2; Sy.No.120-8; permanent injunction suit O.S.No.124/2014.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without interfering with the First Appellate Court's order dated 04.01.2018; Trial Court directed to dispose of O.S.No.124/2014 within one year from receipt of a certified copy of this order, parties to co-operate, and Trial Court to appreciate the facts independently. ¶49

Mahesh Shetty Thimarodi Vs Smt. Meera T. Shetty — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 should quash/set aside the First Appellate Court's order dated 04.01.2018 in M.A.No.6/2015, which granted interim injunction over plaint 'A' schedule property and status quo over plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶18

Court's answer

Taking into account the submissions of counsel and the events noted, this Court at this juncture finds no justification to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Court.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Non-interference is supported by the passage of time: the First Appellate Court's order has been in force for more than six years, this Court never stayed its operation, and no prejudice is alleged.

¶44

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within one year from receipt of a certified copy of this order, with parties to co-operate, and the Trial Court is to appreciate the facts independently without being influenced by the orders passed in this writ petition.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M.G.S. Kamal, J.), disposing of W.P. No. 28038 of 2019 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: the petitioner, defendant No.2 in O.S.No.124/2014 (suit by respondents 1 and 2 for permanent injunction over Sy.No.120-4B2 and Sy.No.120-8, Belthangady Taluk), challenged the First Appellate Court's order dated 04.01.2018 in M.A.No.6/2015, which had reversed the Trial Court's rejection (26.09.2015) of the plaintiffs' I.A.No.7 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and granted interim injunction over plaint 'A' schedule property with status quo over plaint 'B' schedule property. The Court declined to interfere, noting the order had been in force for over six years without any interim stay and without alleged prejudice, and disposed of the petition directing the Trial Court to conclude the suit within one year and to appreciate the facts independently of this writ petition's orders.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 28038 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAHESH SHETTY THIMARODI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. VITTAL SHETTY, THIRMARODI HOUSE, UJIRE VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANDAGY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KARUNAKAR P, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. MEERA T. SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O. THARANATH SHETTY, KUNJARPA HOUSE, UJIRE VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DK DISTRICT - 574 214.

¶13

SMT. SHASHIKALA J SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O. JAYARAMA SHETTY, KEMBARJE HOUSE, BELAL ROAD, UJIRE VILLAGE AND POST, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. THARANATH SHETTY K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 4.1.2018 PASSED IN M.A.NO.6/2015 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY VIDE ANNX-A.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.124/2014 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady.

¶23

The said suit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein against five defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from trespassing into and interfering with the land bearing Sy.No.120-4B2 (Described as Plaint A schedule property) and Sy.No.120-8 (Described as Plaint B schedule property).

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019

¶26

Plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.7 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking ad-interim order of injunction. The Trial Court by order dated 26.09.2015 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection plaintiffs preferred appeal in M.A.No.6/2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady (First Appellate Court). The First Appellate Court by order dated 04.01.2018 allowed the said appeal setting aside the order dated 26.09.2015 passed by the Trial Court and consequently allowed application (I.A.No.7) filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint 'A' schedule property till disposal of the suit and further directed the defendants to maintain status quo with regard to possession of plaint 'B' schedule property till disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.2 has preferred the present writ petition.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Trial Court on appreciation of merits of the claim made by the petitioner had dismissed the application, as he had failed to establish prima facie case entitling him for an interim order, which ought not to have been interfered with by the

¶30

First Appellate Court. He further submits that First Appellate Court merely relied upon the order passed by this Court in the contempt proceedings in C.C.No.960/2016. The said contempt proceedings were initiated for disobedience/violation of the impugned order dated 16.11.2015 passed in the aforesaid M.A.No.6/2015.

¶31

He submits that during pendency of the proceedings, contempt Court had directed to hand over the keys of the Temple in dispute to the plaintiffs and further directed the Tahsildar to measure and fence the area. He submits merely based on these proceeding, the First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal, without adverting to the merits of the case. Hence he submits that the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶34

respondents/plaintiffs at the outset submits that the impugned order in M.A.No.6/2015 by the First Appellate Court was passed on 04.01.2018 restraining all the five defendants from interfering with 'A' schedule property and to maintain status quo with regard to 'A' schedule property. Whereas the present writ petition has been filed only by defendant No.2, that too on 02.07.2019 after lapse of more than one and half years. He further submits that the First Appellate Court has not only taken into consideration the events that transpired during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, but also has looked into the entitlement of the plaintiffs and their claim based on the title documents. It is only thereafter, the First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion of plaintiffs having established prima facie case, which need not be interfered with.

¶35

Heard Sri Karunakar P., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Tharanath Shetty K., learned counsel for 1^st

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019

¶38

respondent/caveator and Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for 2^nd respondent. Perused the records.

¶39

The First Appellate Court while adverting to the claim of the parties has referred to a release deed dated 11.04.2008 and also the revenue records produced by plaintiffs for the year 2013-2014, which has been appreciated by the First Appellate Court to hold that the plaintiffs have indeed made out prima facie case with regard to their right, title and possession in respect of the 'A' schedule property. It is thereafter, the First Appellate Court has taken into consideration the events that had transpired before the Contempt Court, wherein the Contempt Court had directed handing over of the keys with respect to the Temple purported to have been constructed in 'B' schedule property. This Court had also directed the Tahsildar concerned to measure, survey and fence the land with respect to the subject matter of 'B'

¶40

Schedule property. It is these two factors which have weighed in the mind of the First Appellate Court to grant

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019

¶43

interim injunction in respect of 'A' schedule property and an order of status quo in respect of 'B' schedule property.

¶44

As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, though the order is passed by the First Appellate Court on 04.01.2018, the instant writ petition is filed after lapse of more than one and half years. Further this Court has not granted any interim order staying the operation and implementation of the order passed by the First Appellate Court till date, which is close to more than five years. In other words, the order passed by the First Appellate Court is in force for the past more than six years. No prejudice is alleged either.

¶45

On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the parties submit in unison the matter is set down for crossexamination of PW.2 and the same may be directed to be disposed of expeditiously.

¶46

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and the events noted as

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019

¶48

above, this Court at this juncture, do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Court.

¶49

This writ petition is disposed of directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within an outer limit of one

¶50

year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the matter. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall appreciate the facts of the matter independently without being influenced by the orders passed in this writ petition.

¶51

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK

Mahesh Shetty Thimarodi v. Smt. Meera T. Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Shetty Thimarodi v. Smt. Meera T. Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Y Raghuram Shenoy Vs Puttur Town Municipal Council

The Official Liquidator of Vs Smt Bhanumathy Chenanda Appaiah

Sri B P Kalachar Vs Sri Puttappa

Venkateshappa Vs Sakamma (Dead)

Sri. Habeebulla Shariff Vs Sri Muniramaiah

Smt M Leelavathi Vs Sri Mallikarjunaiah