Sri B R Darshan Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R2 AT ANNEXURE-N DATED 27.12.2022 BEARING NO.CPI/KRS/GP/2022 AND THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R3 AT ANNEXURE-Q DATED 03.01.2023 AND ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:2772 WP No. 5781 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs;

¶40

"a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ petition or order, quashing the impugned endorsement issued by the 2^nd Respondent at Annexure-N dated 27/12/2022 bearing No.CPI/KRS/GP/2022 and the endorsement issued by the 3rd Respondent at ANNEXURE-Q dated 3/1/2023,

¶41

b) Direct the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to provide police protection to the Petitioner in relation to the implementation of the order at ANNEXURE-G passed in O.S.No.299/2014 dated 12/9/2014 by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Srirangapatna,

¶42

c) Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶43

The case of the petitioner is that he had filed a suit

¶44

in O.S No.299/2014 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna (for brevity "trial Court") for relief of permanent injunction against the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.54/P1 measuring 4 acres 4 guntas and in Sy.No.65/P3 measuring 10 acres 35 guntas both situated at Majigepura Village, Belgola Hobli, Shirangapatna Taluk. By Order dated 12.9.2014, the trial Court while allowing

¶45

the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC restrained the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 (who are

¶46

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2772 WP No. 5781 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the defendants therein) from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties till disposal of the suit. As against which respondents 4 to 6 preferred a miscellaneous appeal in M.A.No.9/2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, who by order dated 15.07.2015 dismissed the said appeal, confirming the order passed by the trial Court, as against which respondents 4 to 6 preferred writ petition in WP No. 38394/2015. This Court by Order dated 15.03.2021 declining to grant any interference, dismissed the said petition as the same was devoid of merits.

¶49

Things stood thus alleging interference by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, petitioner filed a complaint before the respondent No.3/Police as per Annexure-L on 28.08.2022. Thereafter, he filed another complaint on 20.12.2022 to the respondent No.2 who issued the endorsement dated 27.12.2022 at Annexure-N declining to take any action on the premise that the issue is of civil nature directing the parties to appear before the civil Court or revenue authorities. Petitioner preferred yet another complaint on 03.01.2023 which also met

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:2772 WP No. 5781 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

with the similar endorsement produced at Annexure-Q, being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the

¶55

grounds urged in the memorandum of petition, relies upon the order dated 10.02.2016 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.112453/2024 and 113445-446/2015 submits that petitioner under the facts and law is entitled for the police protection against the unlawful interference by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Despite there being an interim order of injunction restraining them from interfering with peaceful possession of the petitioner he is unable to prevent them. He submits that there is no other effective remedy available to the petitioner, as the respondents have deliberately violated and committing breach of the interim order.

¶56

In response, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that petitioner herein has obtained the interim order by suppressing the material facts. He submits that the respondents herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.102/2007 for partition of several immovable properties in which properties at Sy.No.54/P1 measuring 4 acre 4 guntas

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:2772 WP No. 5781 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

and Sy.No.65/P3 measuring 10 acre 35 guntas subject matter of the present petition is also involved. That though the said suit was dismissed and the regular appeal in RA Nos.129/2012 and 131/2012 and 138/2012 were also dismissed, the respondents have preferred regular second appeal in RSA No.825/2014 and RSA No. 826/2014 which are pending consideration. He draws attention of this Court to the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.6105/2012 produced at the Annexure- D and referring to para 13 of the said order, he vehemently submits that any right, title, interest of the petitioner would be subject to the outcome of the said appeals in RSA No.825/2014 and RSA No.826/2014. As such, the petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim for police protection in the matter.

¶61

On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the private respondents submits, that the respondents are not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property as alleged by the petitioner. However, he insists since the larger relief being sought by the respondents in the nature of partition which is subject matter of appeals in RSA

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:2772 WP No. 5781 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

No.825/2014 and RSA No.826/2014, no directions can be

¶66

issued in the instant case.

¶67

Heard. Perused the records.

¶68

There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner was favoured by the trial Court in O.S No.299/2014 by way of an interim order of injunction restraining the private respondents herein from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which is confirmed in M.A. No.9/2014 as well as the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.P.No.38394/2015. The said interim order as of now has subsisting subject to outcome of the suit. There cannot be any dispute that the order passed by the trial Court, having been confirmed, has to be honoured, implemented and executed in its letter and spirit. Merely because the respondents have filed regular second appeals in RSA Nos. 825/2014 and 826/2014, in which the property being claimed by the petitioner also forms part of, cannot be a ground not to give effect to the interim order granted by the trial Court in OS No.299/2014. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court taking note of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of P.R.

¶69

8 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:2772 WP No. 5781 of 2023

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

MURLIDHARAN & ORS. VS SWAMI DHARMANANDA THEERTHA PADAR reported in 2006 (4) SCC 501 , wherein

¶73

issuance of writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to the person has been recognised, the Coordinate Bench under similar circumstances had issued a writ directing the respondent/authorities to provide protection to the petitioner therein.

¶74

From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner had approached the respondent/Police authorities equipped with the interim order of injunction alleging interference by the private respondents. The respondent/ authorities were therefore required to have considered the said application, taking necessary steps including providing protection if any, that not having been done, the endorsement issue by respondent No. 1 and 2 produced at Annexures- N & Q cannot be sustained.

¶75

In that view of the matter, petition is partly allowed . The endorsements dated 27.12.2022 produced at Annexure-N and dated 03.01.2023 produced at Annexure-Q are accordingly quashed. Petitioner is at liberty to make necessary

¶76

9 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:2772 WP No. 5781 of 2023

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

representations as and when there is interference by the private respondents and the respondent/ authority shall provide necessary protection if need arises. Petitioner is also at liberty to move necessary application before the trial Court seeking

¶80

such remedy as may be available under law.

¶81

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

¶82

RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri B R Darshan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B R Darshan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jayashree v Reddy Vs Government of India

Smt Usha Vs the Citzen Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Yuvaka Sangha (R) Vs State of Karnataka

The Muslim Orphanage Regd Vs Karnataka Information Commission

Sri. M. Marimuthu Vs State of Karnataka