Karnataka High Court
Hanmantha S/O Late Nagappa Nayak vs Yankappa S/O Late Nagappa Nayak & Ors on 28 January, 2016
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
W.P.No.203884/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.203884/2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Hanmantha S/o Late Nagappa Nayak
Age: 62 years, mentally abnormal and
suffering with paralysis,
represented through his
next friend i.e. son Nagappa
S/o Hanmantha
Age: 29 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Mallapur village, now residing at
Amarapur, Tq. Sindhanur,
Dist. Raichur-586101.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Ashok S. Kinagi, Advocate)
AND:
1. Yankappa S/o Late Nagappa Nayak
Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Mallapur village,
Tq. Sindhanur, Dist. Raichur-586101.
2. Mariyappa S/o Siddappa Korvar
Age: 74 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Venkateshwar Nagar
Near Reddy Hotel,
2
W.P.No.203884/2015
Sindhanur, Tq. Sindhanur
Dist. Raichur-586101.
3. Kengatti Mallappa S/o Amaranna
Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Mallapur village,
Tq. Sindhanur, Dist. Raichur-586101.
... Respondents
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue order or
writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
order on I.A.No.III dated 10.06.2015 passed in
O.S.No.287/2012 by the learned Prl. Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Sindhanur, vide Annexure-E and
consequently allow the I.A.No.III.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of invoking Order 39 Rule 2(a) of CPC. The trial Court by the order impugned observed that the suit is one for declaration and permanent 3 W.P.No.203884/2015 injunction in which petitioner obtained an order of ad interim temporary injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the suit schedule property. I.A.No.III under Section 151 to provide police protection to the petitioner - plaintiff to protect his possession of the petition schedule property when opposed by filing objections contending that it is defendants who are in possession of the suit schedule property and regard being had to the fact that many points have arisen in the suit for decision making and by allowing the application it would cause more hardship to the defendants, the trial Court while reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2(a) CPC rejected the application, which in the circumstances does not call for interference.
2. It is no doubt true that this Court in Papanna vs. Nagachari1 observed that Order 39 Rule 2(a) CPC for 1 ILR 1996 KAR 1271 4 W.P.No.203884/2015 taking action for disobedience of an order of temporary injunction, does not prevent the Court from taking steps to see that its orders are implemented and if the Court had no power to implement its own orders, then there is no purpose in the Courts passing orders in matters coming before it and further the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2(a) is not exhaustive and therefore Court can pass appropriate orders to see that its orders are enforced. It was further observed that "in necessary cases" even the police can be directed to enforce the orders of the Court.
3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any reason to believe that it is a case falling within the phrase "in necessary cases" so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court rejecting petitioner's application.
Petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE swk