( BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI , ADVOCATE) v. ( BY SRI. R V JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 )

SRI SIDDEGOWDA S/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O VAKKODI, BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER ( BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI , ADVOCATE) AND : SRI SHANKARAPPA S/O NANJANNA AGD ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O TATADAMANE, VAKKODI BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TLAUK AND DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT ( BY SRI. R V JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 ) 2 THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2011 PASSED IN M.A.NO.12/2005 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMKUR AS PER ANNEXURE-L CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 16.4.2005 ON I.ANO.1, 3 & 4 IN O.SNO.94/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JD) TUMKUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In the plaintiff’s suit for injunction, I.A.No.I filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was rejected by the trial Court. I.A.No.4 filed by the defendant was allowed and the plaintiff was restrained from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred. The Appellate Court confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Hence the present petition. 3

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that I.A.No.4 has been filed under Section 151 of CPC. Hence, on that ground itself, the application should have been rejected. The injunction granted in favour of the defendant and against him is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

Undoubtedly, I.A.No.4 has been filed under Section 151 of CPC. However, a mere non-mentioning of correct provision of law would not disentitle the defendant from injunction. Only on the ground that the application has been filed under a wrong provision of law cannot be a ground per se to dismiss the application. The affidavit filed in support of the application would clearly establish the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is unsustainable.

It is further contended that the trial Court committed an error in granting injunction in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. 4

I ‘am unable to accept the said contention. The trial Court is entitled to grant such an injunction even against the plaintiff if the plaintiff prima facie failed to prove his case and when the defendant has proved his case. On this ground also, no interference is called for.

The writ petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed. Prs* Sd/- JUDGE