Karnataka High Court
Smt.Neelawwa W/O Chandrashekhar ... vs Smt. Shantawwa W/O Veerupaxappa Kabbur on 8 April, 2014
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION No.65726/2012 [GM-CPC]
BETWEEN:
Smt NEELAWWA W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR KABBUR
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O KARIKATTI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. NARAYAN V YAJI ADV.)
AND:
1. Smt SHANTAWWA
W/O VEERUPAXAPPA KABBUR
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O KARIKATTI VILLAGE
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
2. MANJULA D/O VEERUPAXAPPA KABBUR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O KARIKATTI
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
3. FAKKIRAPPA S/O VEERUPAXAPPA KABBUR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KARIKATTI VILLAGE
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.P G CHIKKANARAGUND ADV. FOR C/R1, R2 AND R3;
2
SRI. JAGADISH PATIL ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI DATED:22/06/2012 IN MISC.
APPEAL NO.3/2012, VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT
PETITION AS IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSITUTIONAL AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though this matter is posted for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this order.
2. The petitioner is defendant No.5 in O.S.No.218/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saundatti. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit.
3. The plaintiffs filed the above suit against the defendants for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, they have also filed an application seeking grant of temporary injunction. 3 The Court below has dismissed the said application by order at Annexure "C" dated 24/03/2012. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3/12 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Saundatti. The first appellate Court has allowed the appeal and the defendant No.5 (petitioner herein) was temporarily restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by them pending disposal of the suit. As noticed above, defendant No.5 has challenged the validity of the said order in this writ petition.
4. On 01/08/2012, this Court has stayed the operation of the order of the appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3/2012 dated 22/06/2012.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4
6. As stated above, suit filed by the plaintiffs is for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. According to them, they are the tenants of the said property and that their application filed in Form No.7A is pending before the competent authority. However, defendant No.5 has opposed the said contention. The trial Court on consideration of the materials on record has dismissed the application I.A.I. Though the first appellate Court in the impugned order has recorded that the appeal is dismissed, the subsequent portion in the operative order would clearly indicate that the appeal has been allowed. It has been stated that I.A.I filed by the respondents has been allowed and that defendant No.5 is restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
7. Be that as it may. This Court has granted stay of the operation of the said order on 01.08.2012. 5 The net effect is that the plaintiffs do not have an order of temporary injunction from the date of the suit till this day. Therefore, I direct the parties to maintain status quo as on today. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit on its merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
kmv