Smt. Riyaz Unisa Vs Sri Syed Mubhashir

SRI. DILDAR PASHA S/O LATE CHAND PASHA ABED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT 188, WARD NO.21, ASAR MOHALLA, NATRAJ BEEDI WORKS SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. AL HAJ IRSHAD PASHA S/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT 188, WARD NO.21, ASAR MOHALLA, NATRAJ BEEDI WORKS SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶13

SRI REHAN PASHA S/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49446 WP No. 33314 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

RESIDING AT 188, WARD NO.21, ASAR MOHALLA, NATRAJ BEEDI WORKS SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶17

SRI. IRFAN PASHA S/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT 188, WARD NO.21, ASAR MOHALLA, NATRAJ BEEDI WORKS SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶18

SRI PARVEEZ PASHA S/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT 188, WARD NO.21, ASAR MOHALLA, NATRAJ BEEDI WORKS SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶19

SRI ARIF PASHA S/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT 188, WARD NO.21, ASAR MOHALLA, NATRAJ BEEDI WORKS SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶20

SRI SADDU PASHA S/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT 188, WARD NO.21, ASAR MOHALLA, NATRAJ BEEDI WORKS SIRA TOWN-572 137

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49446 WP No. 33314 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶24

SMT. RUKSANA BANU D/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT 188, WARD NO.21, ASAR MOHALLA, NATRAJ BEEDI WORKS SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶25

SMT. FARZANA BANU D/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT 188, WARD NO.21, ASAR MOHALLA, NATRAJ BEEDI WORKS SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶26

SMT. REHANA BANU D/O LATE CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT 188, WARD NO.21, ASAR MOHALLA, NATRAJ BEEDI WORKS SIRA TOWN - 572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶27

…PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

SRI. SYED MUBHASHIR S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE SAB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT KHARADI MOHALLA OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT URDU SCHOOL,

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49446 WP No. 33314 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

SIRA TOWN - 572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶34

SRI. MOHSIN S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE SAB AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT KHARADI MOHALLA OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT URDU SCHOOL, SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶35

SMT. SYED MUNAZIRA D/O LATE SYED GHOUSE SAB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT KHARADI MOHALLA OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT URDU SCHOOL SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶36

SMT. JABEENA BANU D/O LATE SYED GHOSE SAB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT KHARADI MOHALLA OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT URDU SCHOOL SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶37

SMT. RESHMA BANU S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT KHARADI MOHALLA OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT URDU SCHOOL SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49446 WP No. 33314 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

SMT. THAJUNNISSA D/O LATE SYED GHOUSE SAB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT KHARADI MOHALLA OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT URDU SCHOOL SIRA TOWN-572 137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶41

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶42

THE COMMISSIONER SIRA TOWN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BANNINAGARA MAIN ROAD, SIRA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137

¶43

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SIRA TOWN POLICE STATION NEAR NARAYANASWAMY KALANA MANTAPA,

¶44

SIRA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO DECIDE/DISPOSE OF THEO.S.NO. 16/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SIRA, WITHIN A TIME FRAME OF 3 MONTHS FROM TODAY AS PER THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2024 PASSED IN W.P.NO.9521/2023(GM-CPC), WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-V, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:49446 WP No. 33314 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

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

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶54

The prayer sought in this petition by the petitioners,

¶55

who are defendants before the trial Court is as under:

¶56

"i) To, issue a writ of mandamus, in the nature of order or direction, directing the trial Court to decide/dispose of the O.S.No.16/2022 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Sira, within a time frame of 3 months from today as per the order dated 12.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.9521/2023(GM-CPC), which is produced and marked as Annexure-V, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶57

ii) To, grant, any such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the cae, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶58

This Court does not find the need or necessity to

¶59

issue notice to the respondents/plaintiffs for the reason that the relief sought for in this petition by the defendants is to direct the trial Court to dispose of the main suit in O.S.No.16/2022 within a period of three months. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction and other

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:49446 WP No. 33314 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

consequential reliefs. It is submitted that the parties to the proceedings have completed their pleadings before the trial Court and the issues are yet to be framed.

¶64

Aggrieved by the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff, the petitioners/defendants filed a miscellaneous appeal in M.A.No.3/2023 which was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred this writ petition in W.P.No.9521/2023 (GM-CPC). This Court in the Co-Ordinate Petition, on the challenge made to an order passed under Order-XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, held in favour of plaintiffs and did not interfere with the said order. However, it directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible vide its order dated 12.03.2024. It has been more than one and half years since the order came to be passed with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Till date, the proceedings before the trial court have not moved forward rather, they have stayed where they were, and the petitioners/defendants are before this Court, aggrieved by the trial Court not proceeding with the matter and also for the reasons that the defendants have partly

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:49446 WP No. 33314 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

constructed some portion of the building on the property in the suit schedule property and the defendants claim to be the owner. Therefore, the petitioners/defendants are not happy with the trial Court going at a snail's pace, despite an order passed by this Court in a Co-ordinate petition to dispose of the matter expeditiously. It is the petitioners/defendants who are before this Court seeking for a direction for disposal of the suit in a time-bound manner, more specifically within a period of three months.

¶68

On careful perusal of the order sheet of the trial court, which is placed on record and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, where this Court has directed the trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, apparently, there is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the defendants that the trial Court has not proceeded further in an expeditious manner; rather, it is prolonging the proceedings at the whims and fancies of the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, it becomes necessary for this Court to show indulgence to the defendants by further directing the trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously,

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:49446 WP No. 33314 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

in continuation of the earlier order passed by this Court in the Co-ordinate petition mentioned hereinabove dated 12.03.2024 in W.P.No.9521/2023. For the aforesaid reason, I pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i. This petition is allowed.

¶75

ii. The learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, SIRA is directed to dispose of the original suit in O.S.No.16/2022 within an outer limit of 1 year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶76

iii. All the parties shall be given sufficient opportunity to contest and defend their case.

¶77

iv. The trial Court shall impose exemplary costs on the parties seeking unnecessary adjournments.

¶78

Ordered accordingly.

¶79

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶80

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt. Riyaz Unisa v. Sri Syed Mubhashir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Riyaz Unisa v. Sri Syed Mubhashir

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

Smt. Naseem Begum Vs Sri. Syed Khader

Sri v a Arogyaswamy Alias Arun Vs M/S Sycon Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Drakshayini. R Vs Sri. B. R. Ashwathnarayanappa

Mahendra Kumar Singhi Vs Mr. M Raja

Smt Lalithamma Vs Sri. G Venkataswamy

Sri Thimmareddy P Vs Simon S C