Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nagappa Adiveppa Ambannavar vs Smt. Manjula W/O Basavaraj Dombarkoppa on 8 March, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.112378 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAGAPPA ADIVEPPA AMBANNAVAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIRENANDIHALLI,
TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SRI ISHWAR ADIVEPPA AMBANNAVAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIRENANDIHALLI,
TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P.P.HITTALAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI JAGADISH
PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT.MANJULA
W/O BASAVARAJ DOMBARKOPPA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HIRENANDIHALLI,
TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
2
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2017 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL IN
M.A.NO.8/2017, ON I.A.NO.1 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-J, AS
NULL AND VOID AND KINDLY ALLOW THE I.A.NO.1.
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondents filed a suit for injunction. The interim application filed for temporary injunction was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal. The first Appellate Court dismissed the application on three grounds - firstly, that the order passed by the Trial Court is not executable; secondly, that grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary power of the lower court and hence, no interference is called for; and thirdly, no sufficient cause was shown by the appellants in support of their contentions. The said order is challenged herein.
3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. The same is disputed by the respondent.
3. The first Appellate Court has committed an error in holding that the order passed by the Trial Court is not executable in order to stay the execution of the order as prayed for in the application. The understanding of the learned Appellate Judge is incorrect. The second reasoning that the Trial Court has exercised the discretionary power and therefore, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the same is also incorrect. The order of the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with in a manner known to law. Therefore, the First Appellate Court should have given valid reasons to reject the same. I fail to understand as to how the said order could be passed by the Appellate Judge which is opposed to the very basics of Civil Law. The orders of this nature would cause more harm and injury to the litigants than advancing the cause of justice. 4
4. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, on I.A. No.1 in M.A. No.8/2017, vide Annexure-J, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the first Appellate Court with a direction to rehear I.A. No.1 based on the facts and circumstances and the well established principles in civil law and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders.
Both the parties to appear before the Appellate Court on 19.03.2018.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms