Karnataka High Court
Sri Jagannath vs Sri Babu on 15 September, 2014
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.29968/2014 &
WRIT PETITION NO.38407/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI JAGANNATH,
S/O.LATE GOPALSETTY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
LAXMI PRASANNA TRADING CO.,
OPP: MAHAVEER PETROL BUNK,
B.M.ROAD, HASSAN-573 201. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUN BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
SRI BABU,
S/O.LATE KHALANDRA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
TWO WHEELER MECHANIC,
ILAHINAGAR, HASSAN TOWN,
HASSAN-573 201. ... RESPONDENT
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE JUDGMENT DTD 22.04.2014 PASSED IN
M.A.41/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND
ORDER ON IA.NO.II DTD 29.10.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.518/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HASSAN AT HASSAN.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29.10.2013 passed in O.S.No.518/2013 and the order dated 22.04.2014 passed in M.A.No.41/2013.
2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.518/2013. The plaintiff therein claiming to be the tenant under the defendant therein has filed a suit seeking to protect his possession. In the said suit, he had filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for grant of temporary injunction to protect his possession. The Trial Court by its order dated 29.10.2013 on IA.No.2 has granted the injunction. The petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the same had preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court in M.A.No.41/2013. The Lower Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court and has dismissed the appeal. It is in that circumstance, the defendant before the Trial Court is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Courts below were not justified in 3 granting the order of temporary injunction. It is his case, though the plaintiff has filed a suit claiming to be a tenant, no documents whatsoever is produced to prove that he is a tenant in respect of the property belonging to the defendant. It is therefore contended that in such circumstance, the Court below ought not to have granted the injunction.
4. In the light of the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the order passed by the Courts below would disclose that the Courts below have only made a prima facie consideration with regard to protection of possession of the plaintiff in the premises. The very same contentions which are putforth on behalf of the petitioner herein which was putforth before the Court below was also taken note and the Trial Court has in fact observed that the said contentions would have to be considered while disposing of the suit and the decision as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to protection ultimately is a matter for consideration. It is until such consideration, the temporary injunction has been granted 4 taking note of the possession of the plaintiff though as to whether is a tenant or not would arise for consideration ultimately. In such circumstance, when the prima facie conclusion has been reached in that regard, certainly, if the injunction was not granted, greater prejudice would have been caused to the plaintiff.
5. Therefore, on that aspect of the matter, I see no error committed by the Courts below so as to call for interference. It is however made clear that any of the observations made by the Courts below would stand limited only insofar as the consideration of the aspect relating to temporary injunction and the contention of the parties on the main suit shall be decided based on the evidence that would be produced by the parties before the Courts below and they shall not be influenced by any of the observations in the order either herein or made by the Courts below at the preliminary stage. It is also open to the petitioner to make a request before the Court below for early disposal of the suit. If the same is sought, the Court 5 below shall consider the same and secure the plaintiff to cooperate with the Court for early disposal.
In terms of the above, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST