Karnataka High Court
Sri R H Shekar @R.H.Somashekar vs Sheikh Ameer Jan on 2 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.9774 OF 2022(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI R H SHEKAR @R.H.SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE R.H.HANUMANTHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3700, 13TH CROSS,
GAYATHRI NAGAR,
BENGALURU 560061
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHEIKH AMEER JAN
SINCE DECEASED NO LEGAL HEIRS ON RECORD,
1. SHRI AZAZ PASHA
S/O ABUDL SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT MAHADEVANAPALYA
CHIKKABETTAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560097
2. SHRI ILLIYAZ PASHA
S/O ABDUL SAHEB
2
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
CHIKKABETTAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560097
3. SHRI P.M RAJU
S/O PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 69, 5th MAIN, HMT LAYOUT,
MATHIKERE EXTENSION
BENGALURU 560054
...RESPONDENTS
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND DIRECT THE HONBLE V ADDITIONAL SR
CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU
EITHER TO DISPOSE OF THE REGULAR APPEAL IN
R.A.NO.96/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER OR TO
CONSIDER THE IA FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
ORDER XXIX RULE 1AND2 OF CPC TILL THE SAID APPEAL
IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OF.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff who has suffered a decree in O.S.No.1336/2007. 3 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.96/2012. In the pending appeal, the petitioner has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. This application is of the year 2012.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Appellate Court has not decided the pending application wherein interim injunction is sought by the petitioner.
3. Perused the material on record. If an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC way back in 2012, it was incumbent on the part of the Appellate Court to decide the application in accordance with law. It is also stated across the Bar that the respondents have tendered their objections. If pleadings are completed insofar as interim application is concerned and there are specific 4 pleadings that there is threat of dispossession, the Appellate Court was required to decide the application in accordance with law, which is not done in the present case on hand. Therefore, mandamus issues having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The Appellate Court is directed to decide the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-