Sri.Doddathipanna Vs Sri.Anand Kumar

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TODIRECT RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3 TO STRICTLY ENFORECE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT 1^ST ADDL. CIVL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALUR, IN OS NO. 53/2017 DATED 08.02.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-D, BY ALLOWING THIS WP IN ITS ENTIRETY.

¶27

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:37366 WP No. 28345 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners have a dispute with the first

¶34

respondent which is pending adjudication in O.S. No.53/2017 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur [for short, 'the civil Court' ]. The petitioners have the benefit of the civil Court’s interim order of temporary injunction restraining the first respondent from putting up any fence on the northern side of the property that is mentioned in the plaint schedule. This order, which is granted at the first instance on 08.02.2017 is continued to be in force.

¶35

As seen from the records now produced,

¶36

the civil Court has thereafter decided on the application filed by the first respondent under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner seeks this Court's intervention for directions to the jurisdictional Police [ the second respondent ] and his Superior Officer [ the third

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:37366 WP No. 28345 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

respondent] to prevent the first respondent [ and the persons claiming under him ] from violating the civil Court's aforesaid interim order.

¶41

Sri R. A. Devanand, the learned counsel

¶42

for the petitioners, submits that this Court must, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, intervene and direct the Police because they, in utter disregard of the civil Court’s directions, have registered a crime against the petitioners at the instance of the first respondent and that this Court cannot allow the Police Officers to disregard the orders of the civil Court. Sri Rahul Cariappa, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the second and third respondents, is heard in the context of this grievance.

¶43

This Court must observe that the remit of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is confined only by the restraint that must be when there is an alternative and

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:37366 WP No. 28345 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

efficacious remedy. In the present case, the civil Court is seized of the entire dispute, and it has continued the interim order granted at the first instance restraining the first respondent [a defendant] from putting up any fence. If there is any disobedience by the first respondent, the civil Court, apart from examining whether there is any reason for contempt if an application is filed in that regard, must also ensure that its orders are implemented.

¶48

When the civil Court could thus effectively consider the petitioners' grievance, this Court is not persuaded to intervene at this stage. This Court therefore opines that the petitioners must invoke the civil Court's jurisdiction for directions to the second and third respondents; and if the petitioner files such application, the civil Court must decide the application expeditiously. It would be needless to observe that if despite the civil Court invoking its jurisdiction, and if warranted, the petitioners must be

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:37366 WP No. 28345 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

at liberty to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The petition stands disposed of with

¶55

liberty to the petitioners to file an application in the pending suit with the civil Court and observing that if the petitioners file such application for implementation of the interim order operating in their favour, the civil Court shall decide the same within four [4] weeks therefrom and ensure if occasion demands, not just the implementation but also restitution that would be justified during the pendency of the suit.

¶56

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶57

AN/-

Sri.Doddathipanna v. Sri.Anand Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Doddathipanna v. Sri.Anand Kumar

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

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt G Kavitha Rajagopal Vs the Managing Director and CEO

Sri Ananda Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Innofive Quality Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Smt. Pallavi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sangeetha Vs the Recovery OFFICER-2