Karnataka High Court
Abdul Razak Hassansab vs Nazeer Akkansaheb Negnal on 11 December, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
In THE mare: coum' ms' mmwargrm ¢iRc§i'1~2*'.B$;§"%;::§§ _
AT ¥;'}HA.R;WAD
Dated, this the 1 1th day of mmgmzssg};-', 2'G:%Vz»3 V
BE31»?'f)RE : _ .
THE HGIWBLE MR; J'1;I_;8TIf3E~
writ Petition N0. 5a3g bf»j2OQ6 i€.nv£--_L::;3;:}?
Bétwefinz
1
Ab<:¥"u}'i?azak Hasfiaamfiéfia
Age: 40 }f:::3};$.;-._
Occ: Bu:;;i11e;«s*_V . '--
Smt. Resiifiga ._
W,f.3.Abi:12_1i Kizgudufi.
Age 38 _
O39: '3E*Iou.s€§'v'§i;fs:jVA V
3ot1:"--;.m~ r_/ o7S~i:~s:-i i»i.a ;=3:ba
I_v'Iusi1m=Ga11i._ '
. 5831 Si
"i{z2§.zfW:;:1? District ~~~~ *
. ., Petitionem
Ravi G. Sabhzshit, Advacate}
1'3..a.9é,*€:e1i'V fikkausaheb Negnai
Ag:::_:_ 30- yeam
" '=._Qc(:~: Business
* fl?/0 Indiranagar
Sir-si
Kaxwar Dzsmct
Intizamiya Wakf Cbmmitifie
{Hanafi Sunni (Regdjfi
2
Sultania $5 Madizxa Masjid
Nataraj Roaé, Sirsi Kasba
Simi, District
Represented by its Secretary Respondents
{By Sri Mohti. Usman Shaik, Advocate for 1:21; M] 8. ACC Asseciatee, Advocates for $922}- 4' , * V A' This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 225 vajmi" 22"7..}gf' the C:o21sf:i1:uti<)n ef India, praying '#1; get asic?-'.eV flieerder épaseed' » 1 "
by the Civil Judge (Jr. 3311.) at Simi :i;::1"OS ":No.-:33V]'2.(}G»6"éateci -- 2i'S~3~2(}06 on IA No.4 and 5 pr<3r,iue_e{i..--'at'e further be pleased to direct the Court below tcfhémd o'ver_ti1e keys of shop premises its the. petitioner;-V_ ' a I . * This Writ Petition for ¢;:~:;1.§:~s" this day, we Court made the foflowifigi. ' 'i"he --.;petj:fiEi1'1e1g$'he;ve'e--ha}Ie11ged in this Wrii Petition the Quiet paeseaciéerjn 5 by the trial Court aliewizag
4.a3:1d :{.A.S and fiixecting handing ever of the 'Ie';2is;;;;3nden: is the platmtifi" in 0.3. 33/ 2006. The suit is fiieni $3 deelaratien that the ) is entitied to be in A '»fiO§S$$SiQfl of the property till he is dispossessed in accordance ' and for an injunctien resnainixzg the defendants from " w€jiispc)ssessi11g the plaiflfiff. The petitioner is the first defendant in the said suit. Other defendants are the owners of the shop in question. The plaintifi and the first defendant are givuaz claimants claiming to he in possession of tenants of the suit property. in faet;'.:.he filed suit 0s. No. 16] 2006 against ifhe igudioiu. fofa permanent injunction resflairiiiig disvigiossessirig the: 1 plaintifi except in accordance 'psi suit an order of injunction is _ iiie material on record it is clear that-beeaiise claims which resulted in xawgaea 'exec: police authorities appear to premises. Therefore, in -.petitiorier-first defendant filed an app1icatio;i%Q'i.A. of a commissioner for oper§§3igi.the iock_iof1the' premises and for permitting defendants i.'§;i~id to" on the business. The said application was A '§'Eiee:app1icatio:o for appointment of a commissioner \§as_ He has submitted a report. Thereafter, applieation I.A.No.5 is dismissed and the Court has directed 'thereommissioxier to hand over the keys to the piaintifl" in the _ Aggxieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. in View of the interim order ganted by _ ixnpzlged order is stayed. Today ituflis set 'w hearing.
4. The suit filed by the for a d' V pezmanent injunction V the defendafits fiom intexfezting with his him except in accordance wf::1,;:':.sa_c§;c. to succeed in the said suitiheis oxt the date of the suit._ .. authorities locked the drxangernent, the question of opening acct'-icctkc haxieixigdibsgccd the key would not arise. They are to%ja'11yA.outsidec_V_the of the suit and, therefoxe, the by the first respondent was misconceived. commissioner was appointed. He has _ submitted' 'aVtA.f1'eport, he has handed over the keys of the the Court and the Court without properly the scope of the suit and Without e11qu11y' has handing over of the keys to the plaintifi in the suit. Therefore, the impugned order passed is whofly illegal, outside the purview of thit suit. Under these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.' Hence, I the following order: -
((1) Writ Petition is allowed. a V
(b) Theimpugned orczer:sher¢§t$;i}§;§;¢.sf:e;»d;:'A {£1} The trial Court £5 '71~?\?'49_Cte¢i:4A'3'?b: t'£z1zb thé Vv suits, 0.3. No. ézmi _ together and disgosghf pn hoIdzng' day to by this ifdurfin of ubié." AMHALINGAM vs AND OTHERS [ILR 2008 Sd/Q"
, _____ .. v