Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka State Handloom vs The Managing Director on 4 June, 2012

Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

a..

                                    --1--


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

               DATED THIS THE 4" DAY OF JUNE 2012

                               BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR

               WRIT PEnnON NO.61516/2012 ((GM-OC

      BETWEEN:

      The Karnataka State Handloom
      Weavers Association, Hubli,
      Represented by Shri Ningappa
      Malavade Sb Jaganath Malavade
      Age 52 years, 0cc: Vice-President
      Of Kamataka State Handloom
      Weavers Association, Hubli
      Residing at H.No.1, KHDC
      Colony, Vidyanagar, Hubli.      ..PtTLTIONER
      (By Sri M. Ram Bhat & H.R. Sreepada & Associates, K.
      Satyana rayana, Advocates)

      AND:

      1. The Managing Director,
         Kamataka State Handloom
         Development Corporation,
         Unkal Cross, Hubli.

      2. The Executive Engineer,
         Karnataka Housing Board,
    Bharat Mill Road,
   Chanakyapuri, Hubli.              ..   RESPONDENTS


      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
   the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
   passed by PrI. Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Hubli on LA. No.1
   on 4.1.2012 in 0.5. No.837/2011 (AnnexurePP) etc.,

      This writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing
   this day, the Court made the following.


                            ORDER

None appears for the petitioner.

By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected LA. No.1 filed under Section15i of Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff. By filing the said ap lication, the plaintiff had practically sought for an ordE. r of injunc.tion. Such a relief could have been sought undrr Order39 Ruies4 and 2. of CPC. s the spec.ific pro vision is subsisting under Order- 39 Rules-i a•• nd 2 of CPC for seeking the relief of Temporary or s remrt jrsO c!oY 5 Ot ono 'a -3- proper. However, It seems wrongly the application was made under section-151 of CPC. But the order on hand should be treated as the one passed under Order-39 Rules- 1 and 2 of CPC. If it Is so, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner/plaintiff has to file appeal as per law before the jurisdictional Court.

With these observations, Writ Petition stands dismissed.

sd&