Smt. Venkateshamma Vs Sri. Muni Sonnappa

SMT. VENKATESHAMMA W/O LATE C. MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS RESIDING AT YALUVAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135.

¶10

(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADV.,)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. MUNI SONNAPPA S/O CHIKKABACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶14

SMT. MANJULAMMA W/O GIRIRAJA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶16

SRI. MUNIRAJ S/O YALAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46872 W.P. No.31750/2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. SONNAPPA S/O CHIKKABACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶20

SMT. MANJULA W/O MUNISONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶21

SMT. NARAYANAPPA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶22

SMT. AMRUTHA D/O MUNISONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶23

SMT. ANANDAMMA W/O MUNIRAJA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶24

SRI. GIRIRAJA S/O YALAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶25

SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶26

SRI. BABU S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶27

ALL ARE R/AT: YALUVAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:46872 W.P. No.31750/2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION TO SPEEDY DISPOSAL ANNEXURE-A I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.365/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER PENDING IN 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION & ETC

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

This petition is filed seeking for the following relief:

¶37

"Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other direction to speedy disposal Annexure-A I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.365/2024 filed by the petitioner pending in 2nd Additional Civil Judge And JMFC at Devanahalli, allowing the writ petition ."

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶39

the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction along with I.A.Nos.1 and 2. The Trial Court has considered I.A.No.1 and granted ex parte injunction. Notice on I.A.No.2 was ordered and thereafter, the respondent entered appearance and filed the written statement. However, I.A.No.2 was not considered by the

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:46872 W.P. No.31750/2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Trial Court. Hence, he seeks to issue a writ of mandamus to the Trial Court to dispose of the said application.

¶44

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶45

It is noticed that the petitioner has filed a suit

¶46

for the relief of permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, she has filed two applications in I.A.Nos.1 and 2. The Trial Court considered I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and granted temporary injunction against the defendants from demolishing the stone fenced compound around the suit schedule property. It is noticed that I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration.

¶47

In my considered view, there cannot be any

¶48

positive mandamus to the Trial Court to dispose of the

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46872 W.P. No.31750/2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

application in a time bound manner. However, in view of

¶52

the urgency pleaded in the application, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, not later than eight weeks.

¶53