IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA W.P. NO.108911/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1. HAZARATALI S/O GOUSUSAB GOLANDAZ, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MISHRIKOTI,TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD 2. GOUSEPEER S/O HAZARATALI GOLANDAZ, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD ..... PETITIONERS (BY SRI A. P. MURARI AND SRI L. M. KURAHATTI, ADVS.) AND 1. IRAPPA S/O SHIVARAYAPPA VARUR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JADGERI ONI, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD 2. PARISH S/O TAVANAPPA ADAPPANAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: FCI WORKER, R/O. MULLA ONI, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. BHEEMAJI S/O KRISHNAJI BHOSALE, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2 R/O. MULLA ONI, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. YELLAPPA S/O KRISHNAJI BHOSALE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MULLA ONI, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 5. SURESH S/O KRISHNAJI BHOSALE, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. MULLA ONI, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 6. BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA S/O BASAVANNEPPA ANGADI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JADGERI ONI, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALAGAHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 7. SADANAND S/O GURUSIDDAPPA ANAGADI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JADGERI ONI, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 8. GURAPPA S/O BASHETTAPPA MUDENAVAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PYATI ONI, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD 9. NAGAPPA S/O BASHETTAPPA MUDENAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PYATI ONI, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD 10. SHADEVAPPA S/O BASHETTAPPA MUDENAVAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PYATI ONI, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KLAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3 11. RAMANNA S/O CHANNAPPA MUDENAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PYATI ONI, MISHRIKOTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD ..... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. B. KALE, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A1 DATED 04.07.2014 PASSED SUO MOTO BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KALAGHATAGI, IN O.S.NO.259/2012 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING : ORDER Petitioners herein who are plaintiffs in O.S.No. 259/2012 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Kalghatagi have come up in this proceeding impugning order dated 28.06.2014 in rejecting their application in I.A.No.4 filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. 2. The admitted facts are that the suit in O.S.No.259/2012 is for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The declaration is with reference to existence of pathway between the properties bearing Sy.Nos.182/1B, 182/1A, 185/1 of Mishrikoti village. It is 4 stated that the said lands are boundary lands of Mishrikoti village and after the boundaries, there is a pathway between Mishrikoti and Kamadenu village. It is further contended that the said road is the only road available for the plaintiffs to reach their properties bearing Sy.Nos.182/1A and 182/1B of Mishrikoti Village. 3. In the said suit, the defence taken is that no road existed between the property of defendants and Kamadenu village. The alleged boundary passage (seemi daari) is a creation of Taluka Surveyor in the sketch, which is provided by him. The records would indicate that in the said suit, an application in I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1and 2 was filed and the same is rejected. It is contended that the dismissal of the said application is subject matter of M.A.No.26/2014 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Dharwad, which is filed by the plaintiffs themselves. 4. It is also contended by counsel for the respondents-defendants that the suit in O.S.No.259/2012 5 is at the stage of final arguments inasmuch as the evidence of both the plaintiffs and defendants are already recorded. 5. When the matter stood thus, it is stated that I.A.No.4 is filed seeking direction to police for protection to implement the interim order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and the same is dismissed by order dated 28.06.2014 and now it is impugned in this writ petition. 6. After hearing learned counsel for petitioners and respondents who are respectively plaintiffs and defendants before the Court below, it is seen that the application in I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.259/2012 is already dismissed by order dated 28.06.2014 which is the subject matter of M.A.No.26/2014. It is stated that the evidence of the parties is completely recorded in O.S.No.259/2012. In that view of the matter, at this belated stage, question of interfering with the order rejecting the prayer made in I.A.No.4 filed for extending the police protection to 6 implement the interim order granted earlier does not arise. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the trail Court to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.259/2012 within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- JUDGE Naa.