Sri Parasegowda Vs Sri Javaraji Gowda

SRI JAVARAJI GOWDA S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT:- KEREHUNDI VILLAGE DANAGALLI POST JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 570 008.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN M.A.NO.118/2025 (ANNEXURE-C) TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE WITHIN TIME FRAME AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:50190 WP No. 35633 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff.

¶26

The petitioner is none other than the plaintiff in

¶27

the original suit and appellant in M.A.No.118/2025.

¶28

This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent-defendant as no adverse order is passed against him. The only relief that is sought in the present writ petition is to direct III Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in M.A.No.118/2025 to dispose off the case within a time frame.

¶29

The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction against the respondent-defendant. Along with the plaint, he has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein he sought for an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant and his agents, servants, followers, labourers, power of attorney holders,

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50190 WP No. 35633 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

family members or any other persons from not to put up any construction in the suit schedule property of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of the suit. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in M.A.No.118/2025, which is pending for adjudication.

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel for

¶34

petitioner-plaintiff that the first Appellate Court is not considering I.A.No.II filed for temporary injunction. The respondent-defendant is deliberately prolonging and protracting the proceedings. Aggrieved by non-passing of the order on I.A.No.II by the first Appellate Court, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court.

¶35