In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE S SUJATHA Writ Petition No.132/2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI VENKATESHAPPA S/O GOORAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT. OBALAPURA VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHANTAPPA, ADV.FOR SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT. ASAGODU VILLAGE, BILICHODU HOBLI, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 2. SRI H.R. BHEEMA KUMAR S/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT. ASAGODU VILLAGE, BILICHODU HOBLI, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 3. SRI H.R.KARIBASAPPA S/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT. ASAGODU VILLAGE, BILICHODU HOBLI, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 2 4. SRI H.R. BASAVARAJ S/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT. ASAGODU VILLAGE, BILICHODU HOBLI, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 5. SMT. SAVITHA W/O NASAVANAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT. ASAGODU VILLAGE, BILICHODU HOBLI, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 6. SMT. ANITHA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT. ASAGODU VILLAGE, BILICHODU HOBLI, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 7. KUMARI SUNITHA D/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT. ASAGODU VILLAGE, BILICHODU HOBLI, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H K RAVI, ADV. FOR SRI H KANTHARAJA, ) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE DAVANGERE IN OS 60/09 ON IA NO.5 DATED 15.12.12 VIDE ANNX-F. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this writ petition, the order passed on I.A. No.5 in O.S.No.60/2009 on the file of learned Civil 3 Judge, Sr. Division & CJM at Davangere is called in question by the defendant/petitioner. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per the their rank arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.60/2009 on the file of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division & CJM at Davangere claimed that the land bearing Sy.No.23/2 measuring 9 acres 28 guntas of Obalapura Village, Bilichod Hobli, Jagalur Taluk, Davangere District was purchased by the plaintiffs family from one Bheemappa s/o Hotteppala Kariyappa under a registered sale deed dated 10.03.1943 and plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit schedule property. The defendant contended that the land in question is a granted land, defendant’s forefather Yanagatappa was the original grantee of the schedule property. It was also contended that the defendant’s forefather had executed the sale deed as a security to the loan 4 borrowed by them to establish that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and accordingly the defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement. Plaintiffs filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. The defendant also filed an application for vacating the exparte injunction. The trial Court after hearing the said applications, was pleased to allow IA filed by the plaintiffs for grant of injunction against which M.A.No.181/11 was filed by the defendant before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davangere. During the pendency of the said appeal the plaintiffs filed an application i.e., I.A No.5 in O.S.No.60/2009 before the Principal Civil Judge, Sr.Dvn., at Davangere seeking police aid for implementation of the injunction order which was allowed on 15.12.2012. The same is challenged by the defendant in this writ petition, mainly on the ground that granting police assistance for implementing the injunction order during the pendency of M.A.No.181/2011 is erroneous. 5 4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that Misc.Appeal No.181/2011 filed by the defendant before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davangere was dismissed on 10.10.2013. It was contended that though, the plaintiffs having obtained an order of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC defendant has been causing obstruction to their cultivation, to prevent such obstruction and to protect his rights, he sought for police aid to enforce the injunctive order and the same has been rightly allowed by the trial Court and thus, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant admits that M.A.No.181/11 filed by him before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davangere was dismissed on 10.10.2013. 6. In view of the same, it is appropriate that the order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dvn., on I.A.No.5 6 in O.S.No. 60/2009 has to be upheld dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- JUDGE brn .