A S Umeshappa vs C Byrappa on 31 July, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

A S Umeshappa vs C Byrappa on 31 July, 2012

Bench: Ravi Malimath

                               1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

            ON THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2012

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

      WRIT PETITION NO. 16582 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

1.    A.S. Umeshappa
      Aged About 56 Years
      S/o. Late Yadehalli Nandyappa

2.    Smt. Chandramma
      Aged About 51 Years
      W/o Late Rudrappa

3.    Smt. Indramma
      Aged About 47 Years
      S/o. Late Prakashappa

      All are Agriculturist
      R/At Danavadi-Village,
      Holehonnur-Hobli
      Bhadravathi-Taluk.              ...   Petitioners

(By Sri. M.R. Hiremathad, Adv.)

And

1.    C. Byrappa
      Aged About 73 Years
                               2


     S/o. Late Marudappa

2.   Gude Govindappa
     Aged About 66 Years
     S/o. Late Nagappa

3.   G.M. Chandrashekarappa
     Aged About 62 Years
     S/o. Late Marudappa

4.   D.M. Ravikumar
     Aged About 56 Years
     S/o. Mahadevappa

5.   D.M. Nagarajappa
     Aged About 46 Years
     S/o. Mahadevappa

6.   Gude Basappa
     Aged About 56 Years
     S/o. Late Gude Hanumanthappa

     All are Agriculturist
     R/At Danavadi-Village,
     Holehonnur-Hobli
     Bhadravathi-Taluk            ...    Respondents

(By Sri. S.N. Bhat, Adv. for C/R1-6)

     This Writ Petition is filed under Articles - 226 &
227 of the Constitution Of India praying to quash the
order passed in MA No.5 of 2012 by the Senior Civil
Judge, at Bhadravathi dtd.12.3.12, vide Annex-H,
consequently the order passed on IA No.2 in OS
No.488/11 dtd.12.1.12 by the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge
                             3



and JMFC at Bhadravathi vide Annex - E by rejecting
the application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, etc.

     This writ petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing, the Court delivered the following:

                        ORDER

In a suit by respondents for a declaration that they have a right of way over the cart road as an easement of necessity, an interlocutory application under Order - 39, Rule - 1 and 2 of CPC was partly allowed and an order of status-quo was granted. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners / defendants preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court confirmed the said order. Hence, the present petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants submit that the impugned order is bad in law and requires to be set-aside. The application of injunction has to be rejected and no status-quo order has to be granted.

3. The counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6 defends the impugned order.

4. On hearing the counsel and examining the impugned order, I am of the considered view that there is no error committed by both the courts below. In view of the dispute with regard to the suit schedule property the trial Court has rightly considered the material on record and passed an order of status-quo. The order of status-quo is an order keeping in mind the contentions of both the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and it is an equitable order and does not call for interference.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition being devoid of merits is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE JJ*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court