Loknathappa vs Bopal Ajjappa on 2 December, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Loknathappa vs Bopal Ajjappa on 2 December, 2020

Bench: Krishna S.Dixit

                           1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

        WRIT PETITION NO.4898 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
LOKNATHAPPA
S/O.KALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT SRI VEERAMARANNA TEMPLE
AJJAIAHNAHATTI
KANCHIPURA MAJURE
MATHODU HOBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     BOPAL AJJAPPA
       S/O.SANNA MARAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
       GUDIGOWDA OF
       SRIVEERAMARANNA TEMPLE

2.     RAMACHANDRA
       S/O.MARAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

3.     SHIVARUDRAPPA
       S/O.MARAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

       ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS
       AJJAIAHANA HATTI
       KANCHIPURA MAJURE
       MATHOD HOBLI
                               2

     HOSADURGA TALUK
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 121
     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI P.H.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3;
    R-1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2019 (ANNEXURE-G) IN
M.A.NO.7/2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, HOSADURGA AND ETC.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.257/2019 is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court assailing the order dated 23.09.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-G whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hosadurga, having rejected his appeal in M.A.No.7/2019 has confirmed the order of the learned trial Judge who had denied interim protection.

2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their respective counsel, resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it is structured. 3

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter:

a) since two Courts below have duly considered all aspects of the matter and have exercised discretion in accordance with Rules of reason and justice, regard being had to material on record; they have also adverted the sequel Police report and the resolution to which allegedly petitioner happened to be one of the signatories, the said resolution being in the custody of the first defendant with whom the petitioner appears to be in good terms.

b) the Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 held at para-7 as under:

"The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or review the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision."

the learned Court exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 does not sit in appeal over the orders impugned although it undertakes a limited scrutiny, a deeper examination of the impugned orders is not warranted.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed as being not meritorious. However, the observation hereinabove made or the observations made in the impugned orders of the learned Judges of the Courts below shall not in any way influence the trial and decision making in the suit.

All contentions of the parties are kept open. A request is made to the learned Judge of the trial Court to try and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible regard being had to the nature of complexity involved therein.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE LB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court