B.Ramaiah S/O. Dodda Honnurappa vs B.Nayanappa S/O. Dodda Honnurappa on 30 September, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B.Ramaiah S/O. Dodda Honnurappa vs B.Nayanappa S/O. Dodda Honnurappa on 30 September, 2013

Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri

                            -1-


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

    DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

       WRIT PETITION NO.82783/2013 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

B. Ramaiah
S/o. Dodda Honnurappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ.: Agriculturist,
R/o.: Korlagundi Village,
Tq. & Dist.: Bellary.
                                           ... PETITIONER

 (By Sri M.B. Madanalli for Sri Narayan V. Yaji, Advocate)

AND:

B. Nayanappa
S/o. Dodda Honnurappa,
Aged about 66 years,
Occ.: Agriculturist,
R/o.: Korlagundi Village,
Tq. & Dist.: Bellary.
                                          ... RESPONDENT

             (By Sri Gode Nagaraja, Advocate)
                             -2-


       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
order dated 07.09.2013 passed by the learned II-Additional
Senior      Civil  Judge,       Bellary  on     I.A.No.17  in
O.S.No.189/2007 vide Annexure-F to the writ petition as it
is illegal and unconstitutional and etc.

      This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the Court made the following:

                         ORDER

The petitioner has called into question the order, dated 07.09.2013 (Annexure-F) passed by the Court of the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bellary on I.A.No.17 in O.S.No.189/2007.

2. Heard the learned advocates Sri M.B. Madanalli appearing for Sri Narayan V. Yaji for the petitioner and Sri Gode Nagaraja appearing for the respondent.

3. I have gone through the impugned order. The Trial Court's reasoning is that the subsequent events are not necessary to be included in the plaint for the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties in the case. As the suit is for bare injunction, the petitioner - -3- plaintiff has to show only two-things i) he is in settled possession and ii) his possession is being disturbed.

4. The amendments sought are strictly not necessary for resolving the real controversy between the parties. It is also worthwhile to notice that the petitioner has not cross-examined the respondent. The Trial Court, going by the conduct of the petitioner, has formed the view that the I.A.No.17 is filed to harass the defendant and to waste the public time of the Court. Therefore it has rejected the I.A.No.17 by imposing the cost of Rs.1,000/-.

5. Not finding any infirmity in the order, I dismiss this petition. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vnp*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court