: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 07 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

WRIT PETITION Nos.103664-665 OF 2015 [GM-CPC]

BETWEEN:

1. KRISHNAPPA S/O RANGAPPA DASAR, AGE:65 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: SANNAGUBBI, TQ:, DIST: .

2. SHIVAPPA S/O VENKAPPA BANAKAR, AGE:80 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:SANNAGUBBI, TQ:HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

3. SIDDAPPA S/O HANAMANTAPPA DASAR, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:SANNAGUBBI, TQ:HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. SURESH P HUDEDAGADDI ADV.)

AND:

1. MURALIDHAR @ MURARI GOVINDRAO KULKARNI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST, R/O: RAMAKUNJA, TQ: PUTTUR, DIST: DAKSHINA . : 2 :

2. SHRIKANT S/O GOVINDRAO KULKARNI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: , TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

3. ROHINI D/O GOVINDRAO KULKARNI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RATTIHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

4. VAIDEHI D/O GOVINDRAO KULKARNI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RATTIHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

5. PARIMAL D/O GOVINDRAO KULKARNI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RATTIHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

6. LAXMAPPA S/O VENKAPPA JOKNAL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SANNAGUBBI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. S G KADADAKATTI ADV. AND SRI.LINGESH V.KATTIMANI, ADV. FOR C/R5; SRI.LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI, ADV. FOR R5

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF , PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2013, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND ITINERATE COURT AT HIREKERUR, IN O.S.NO.124/2010, VIDE ANNEXUER-G AND THE ORDERS DATED 03.03.2015 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR IN M.A.Nos.6 AND 7 OF 2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND J.1. : 3 :

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The present petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, filed the above writ petitions challenging the order dated 03.03.2015 made in M.A. Nos.6/2013 and 7/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Hirekerur, confirming the order dated 18.04.2013 rejecting I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.124/2010 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short ‘CPC’) and allowed I.A. No.2 filed by defendant

No.2 to 6, granting injunction, restraining the plaintiffs by way of temporary injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by defendant Nos.2 to 6, in any manner till the disposal of the suit.

2. The plaintiffs filed suit for bare injunction contending that they are the owners and in possession : 4 : and enjoyment of the property in question. The defendants filed written statement resisting the plaint averments and contended that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The trial court after considering the entire material on record by its order dated 18.04.2013 rejected I.A. No.1 filed by the plaintiff and allowed I.A. No.2 by the defendants holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his prima facie possession as on the date of the suit. The same has been confirmed by the lower appellate court in

M.A. Nos.6 and 7 of 2013 by the impugned order dated

03.03.2015. Against the said order, the present writ petitions are filed.

3. It is brought to the notice of the Court that during the pendency of the appeals before the lower appellate court, the injunction order passed by the trial court was stayed throughout the proceedings. Now, both the plaintiffs and defendants are fighting for : 5 : possession. The plaintiffs’ are basing on the tenancy rights granted by the Land Tribunal and the defendants, per contra , contending that they are the owners of the property in question and the application filed by plaintiff No.1 for grant of occupancy rights was rejected and subsequently granted on 03.06.1998, which was set aside by this Court in W.P. No.37241/2000 on

06.02.2007 and against the said order, a writ appeal was filed in W.A. No.62362/2009 which came to be dismissed for default on 14.10.2009. That both parties are claiming for possession and taking into consideration the fact that during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court, there was an interim order of stay, therefore, it is suffice to direct both parties to maintain status quo as on today and the trial court to expedite the suit itself to resolve the dispute between the parties, since, the suit is only for bare injunction. : 6 :

4. In view of the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously, but not later than eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to both plaintiffs and defendants would co-operate with the trial court in early disposal of the suit.

5. With these observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of , without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the impugned orders passed and the case of the respective parties.

SD/- JUDGE RK/-