Kasim Sab S/O Ali Sab vs Thimma Reddy on 31 August, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Kasim Sab S/O Ali Sab vs Thimma Reddy on 31 August, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 315'? DAY OF AUGUST 2010'
BEFORE ' T

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOICIA' ;VI'lJA:.', 

WRIT PETITION N0.16284.,:'2'0.l4O (<j;I\xIgCAIécj""'   

BETWEEN

I. KASIM SAB S/o ALI SAD' _ 

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, "
OCC:AGRICULTURIST, 

R/G CHIKKAMADHURAI  .._ 
KASABA HOBLI, Tg; A 
CHITRADURGA DIST.  *    

2. HUSSA1N.PEf33~.S/"Q'"KASI1'./LSA5
AGED AI3.Q'UT 'YEARS, _ 
occ:AGRIC-ULTURIST; ' -

R/O --C}II H LIRAI, 
KASABA I~IoBI.I,"'c'I:ALI,AK1a:RE: TQ.
c_HITRADURC;A,.D1ST.*  "

 -  .,'j}I\§IoIiAI.cI_ED S'/0.IqASIM SAB

«_ }'.,G13I3 ABOUT 40 YEARS,
 "ocD,;AQRIVcULTURIST,
1- .  C«E1Ii€Ex'AI\/IADHURAI,
1 I*;ASAI-3Aj--j_ILI-i3I3LI, CHALLAKERE TQ.
'CHIf_f'KA;D'URGA DIST.

 PETITIONERS

V'    S c VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV.)



AND

3. THIMMA REDDY
S/O EKANTHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCOAGRICULTURIST,

R/O HIREMADHURAI,

KASABA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TQ.
CHITRADURGA DIST.

2. BASAVARAJ@ SOMAJJARA BASAVARAJ '-  -_ , " 
s/0 NOTKNOWN     
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, «

OCC:AGRICUL'l'URIST, E

R/0 HIREMADI-IURAI   
KASABA HOBLI, cHALLAi:ERER'Eg.., 
CHITRADURGA DIS'I"."  '  '  .. 

   QQARESRONDENTS

{BY SR1  __~:=Ri B.M. SIDDAPPA}

THIS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE.._VcoNsTmVJ'rIrJN OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR  RECORDS'; QUASI-I THE ORDER PASSED BY THE

 LEAR1~i1ED'ADDITioNAL.{EVIL JUDGE {JR.DN.) CHALLAKERE

'ON ILA.N€5L2 IN O.S.NO. 196/08 DTD 2.12.08 AS PER ANNEX~E

'*._W151'ic_H WAS«.._CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE
'{-s.1:»_.R) Cm.LLA:§I«:RE IN M.A.1/O9 DTD 16.12.09 AS PER

  

TI.'r1i.st"Writ Petition coming on for Preiiminary hearing

A A group, this day, the Court made the foilowing :



ORDER

The plaintiffs are the petitioners and respondents are the defendants. The relief in the suit is decree of permanent injunction restraining. thedvefendants up from committing any acts of trespass. or causingdan'1age., obstruction activities to cropsﬂiin property or attempting to c1aiinn,cart traclsfpoirervfgthe same in any manner. Along«--_..{iJi_t1"i._ the? st1pit..,:"~1_._A.No.2 was filed seeking an orderof temporaryv "

u "ﬁled written statement and also objections and have contested the claim thev_»»'p1aintiffs.V.f " trial Court did not find merit in 'I.:A.'N0.?.__Vandftthe same was dismissed by an order dated appeal preferred thereafter is aiso '»_unsucces_sfu1 as is evident from the judgment dated A ..:if"1A:6;iI?_..20O9 passed in M.A.No.1/2009. This writ petition directed against the aforesaid order and judgment. 4:

3. Indisputedly, the first respondent has instituted O.S.No.201/2008 on the ﬁle of civiijaudge (Jr.Dn.), Chaliakere, for the relief of dec1ara.tion__"

regard to easernentary right of way by preS(:r,i'£1§tio'r:i_t.:to4_pass-_ the through cart track shown in the D accompanying the plaint.

the petitioners herein in Saection 24 CPC, O.S.N0.201/200$'.'..haS and made over to the Court wherei.n'_O.Sii\to. filed by the petitioners ucotinsel submits that issues suits are at the stage of trial. V. a =

4. 'Keeping_ irt._viez_@: the nature of dispute between the sinCe.__hoth the parties are litigating with V7_Vregai'd to thaoart track in question, it would advance the ca'u.se'*of if the trial Court is directed to dispose of the snitsttexpeditiously, rather than keeping the matters on LA. proceedings. Both tie'parties are __,.I'' /3 directed to maintain status--quo of the suit property till the trial of the suits is completed and disposed of. Neither of the parties shail change the status of the track in any manner and shall continue to i.t'1's_ V 9 as on date an O.S.Nos.19E3/20§éV disposed of in accordance 'd d. n The trial Court is to otgttre said suits expeditiously mmnd period of nine months from VtIV:ii_s'V"order is placed on record of tlﬁie fhjeiparties.

Writ of in the above terms.

.....

itfdge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court