Karnataka High Court
Abdul Gafoor Since Deceased Rep By His ... vs K R Abdul Rehman on 9 July, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.17696 OF 2012(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
ABDUL GAFOOR
SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS
1 ZAHEER UNNISA @ PARI JAN
W/O LATE ABDUL GAFOOR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT FORT KUNIGAL
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2 ASHRAF UNNISA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
W/O C K MOHAMMED KHASEEM
R/AT MANDYA ROAD, NAGAMANGALA
MANDYA DISTRICT
3 ABDUL MUNAF
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE ABDUL GAFOOR
R/AT FORT KUNIGAL
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
4 NAZHATH UNNISA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2
S/O SYED TAJUDDIN
R/AT IST CROSS
MARALUR DINNE
TUMKUR
5 NASRATH UNNISA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
W/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE
R/AT KALYA GATE, MAGADI
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT
6 FARHATH UNNISA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O ZAHEED BASHA
R/AT NAGASANDRA POST
YEDIYUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
7 FAHEEM UNNISA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O LATE ABDUL GAFOOR
R/AT FORT KUNIGAL
TUMKUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED & SRI ABDUL KHADER, ADVOCATES)
AND :
1 K R ABDUL REHMAN
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
S/O LATE ABDUL RAHEEM
R/AT NO 331, 3RD MAIN
SUBASH NAGAR
MYSORE-07
2 K J NAYEEMUNNISSA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3
W/O ABDUL LATHEEF
R/AT OPP. CHANNABASAVESHWARA TAKEES
FORT, KUNIGAL TOWN
KUNIGAL. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R S RAVI , ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-E, DATED 20.4.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.59/12 BY
THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC AT KUNIGAL AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In a suit by the petitioners-plaintiffs to declare that the plaintiffs as a matter of right is entitle for acquisition of suit schedule property by way of preemption from the defendants one and two as contemplated under Section 261 of the Mohammden Law, an order of status-quo with regard to suit schedule property was granted on 07.03.2006. The same was being adhered to. Thereafter an application under Section 94(e) of CPC was made by the defendant No.2 seeking prohibitory orders against the plaintiffs not to alter or cause modification to 4 the suit schedule property. The trial Court by the impugned order allowed the same. Hence, the present petition.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the status quo order has to be complied with by both the parties. That in case of violation of status-quo order, the respondents have an appropriate remedy under the law. The present application is not maintainable.
3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order.
4. On hearing counsels and examining the impugned order, I 'am of the considered view that interference is called for. The respondent apprehends that the petitioner may alter and modify the suit property without seeking permission of the Court and that he is trying to modify the entire suit property and grab the same. He has further stated that the plaintiffs and his supporters entered into the suit house and put up the door. If 5 this is the grievance, the same should be agitated in an appropriate manner as provided under law. When the defendant has an adequate remedy under law, the trial Court misguided itself and Section 94(e) has been totally misread.
5. Consequently, the order dated 20.04.2012 passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.59/2012 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Kunigal is set aside. I.A.No.8 is dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE Prs*