Writ Petition No. 6491 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24597 WP No. 6491 of 2020 C/W WP No. 5311 of 2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6491 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION NO. 5311 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) C/W IN WP No. 6491/2020 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA @ BANDAHALLI KRISHNAPPA S/O BANDAHALLI VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.14, 7TH DIVISION, KANDAVARA CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT PIN CODE-562103 (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA W/O LATE K G VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT WAR NO.14, DIVISION KANDAVARA CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT PIN CODE-562103 Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka …PETITIONER (BY SMT. GOHAR UNNISA.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VISHWANATH SHETTY) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24597 WP No. 6491 of 2020 C/W WP No. 5311 of 2020 HC-KAR
Legal Reasoning
THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TOQUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1.4.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.102/2019 BY THE HON-BLE COURT OF THE 2nd ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA OF REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY TE PETITIONER U/O XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC, SEEKING INTERIM ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION (AT ANNX-L) AND THE ORDER DATED 4.9.2019 PASSED BY THE HON-BLE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPURA, IN M.A.NO.17/2019 OF REJECTING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT AT ANNX-N AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION IA NO.2 FILED IN O.S.NO.102/2019 BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND ETC. IN WP NO. 5311/2020 BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA @ BANDAHALLI KRISHNAPPA S/O BANDAHALLI VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.14, 7TH DIVISION, KANDAVARA CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT PIN CODE-562103 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA - W/O LATE K G VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT WAR NO.14, DIVISION KANDAVARA CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT PIN CODE-562103 (BY SRI.VISHWANATH SHETTY) GOHAR SRI. ...RESPONDENT UNNISA.,ADVOCATE FOR THIS WP FILED UNDER ARICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IN IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1.4.2019 O.S.NO.84/2019 BY THE HONBLE COURT OF THE 2ND PASSED - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24597 WP No. 6491 of 2020 C/W WP No. 5311 of 2020 HC-KAR BY THE FILED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA OF ALLOWING THE APPLICATION RESPODNETN/PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC, SEEKING INTERIM ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AT ANNEXURE-M AND THE ORDER DTED 4.9.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPURA, IN M.A.NO.16/2019 OF REJECTING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT (AT ANNEXURE-P) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.1 FILED IN O.S.NO.84/2019 BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER In WP.No.6491/2020, the petitioner seeks for the following relief: i) Pass a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction quashing the Impugned order dated 1/4/2019 passed in O.S No. 102/2019 by the Hon'ble Court of the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkaballapura of rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, seeking interim order of temporary injunction (at Annexure-L) and the order dated 4/9/2019 passed by the Hon'ble Court of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkaballapura, in M.A. No. 17/2019 of rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24597 WP No. 6491 of 2020 C/W WP No. 5311 of 2020 HC-KAR confirming the order passed by the Trial Court (at Annexure-N) and consequently allow the application IA No.2 filed in O.S. No. 102/2019 by the petitioner herein for temporary injunction; and ii) Pass any other writ order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. In WP.No.5311/2020, the petitioner seeks for the following relief: "i) Pass a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction quashing the Impugned order dated 1/4/2019 passed in O.S No. 84/2019 by the Hon'ble Court of the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkaballapura of allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, seeking interim order of temporary injunction (at Annexure-) and the order dated 4/9/2019 passed by the Hon'ble Court of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkaballapura, in M.A. No. 16/2019 of rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein and confirming the order passed by the Trial Court (at Annexure-P) and consequently allow the application IA No.2 filed in O.S. No. 84/2019 by the petitioner herein for temporary injunction; and ii) Pass any other writ order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity". - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24597 WP No. 6491 of 2020 C/W WP No. 5311 of 2020 HC-KAR 3. Sri. Shivakumar V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.No.6491/2020, submits that the petitioner herein has filed an application in O.S.No.102/2019 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking for a relief of temporary injunction in the said suit, which came to be dismissed on 01.04.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in MA.No.17/2019, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court. It is further submitted that in WP.No.5311/2020, the respondent herein has filed an application in O.S.No.84/2019 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking for a temporary injunction against the petitioner with regard to the 'D' schedule property in the said suit, which came to be allowed on 01.04.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has filed an appeal in MA.No.16/2019, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 04.09.2019. It is also submitted that the suits - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24597 WP No. 6491 of 2020 C/W WP No. 5311 of 2020 HC-KAR filed by the petitioner and the respondent are being tried in same Courts and they are at the stage of trial. It is submitted that 'D' schedule property in O.S.No.84/2019 is the subject matter of the suit. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that there exist 3 feet passage and not 9 feet passage as claimed in 'D' schedule property by the other side. However, the said issue is required to be gone into in the pending suits. It is also contended that the respondent's suit for bare injunction i.e., O.S.No.84/2019 is not maintainable as the averment in the plaint is relating to easementary right and unless the respondent seeks declaratory relief, such a suit, itself is not maintainable. Without considering these aspects, the trial Court granted an injunction in favour of the respondent against the petitioner herein. Hence, he seeks to grant relief at least to maintain status-quo till the disposal of the suits. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24597 WP No. 6491 of 2020 C/W WP No. 5311 of 2020 HC-KAR 5. Per contra, Smt.Gohar Unnisa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.84/2019, the trial Court considered all the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein and rejected the same by granting injunctory relief in favour of the respondent against the petitioner herein. The same is affirmed by the Appellate Court. It is also submitted that in a suit filed by the petitioner, no relief of injunction is granted against the respondent. All the four orders in these writ petitions are in favour of the respondent and no interference is called at this stage. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24597 WP No. 6491 of 2020 C/W WP No. 5311 of 2020 HC-KAR 7. In a suit in OS.No.84/2019 filed by the respondent herein, the trial Court considered the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and by the detailed reasons allowed the same vide order dated 01.04.2019 which came to be challenged by the petitioner in MA.No.16/2019 and the said appeal was dismissed on 04.09.2019 by affirming the order of the trial Court and confirming the injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner herein has filed suit in OS.No.102/2019 for a relief of permanent injunction against the respondent herein with regard to the suit schedule property referred therein. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the schedule 'D' property in OS.No.84/2019 consists only 3 feet passage, not the 9 feet passage. Remaining extent of the schedule 'D' property is owned by the petitioner. Admittedly, now both suits are tried in same Courts and interim injunction is operating against the petitioner herein from 01.04.2019 which is in force and the impugned - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24597 WP No. 6491 of 2020 C/W WP No. 5311 of 2020 HC-KAR orders are not stayed by this Court, nor any interim protection is provided. Hence, I am of the considered view that no purpose would be served by recording any finding with regard to the contention urged by the petitioner in these petitions, as the trial in both the suits have proceeded further and parties are adducing the evidence. That being so, it is made clear that the trial Court is required to consider both suits on their merits without being influenced by the findings recorded on the interlocutory applications. Also, I am of the considered view that both suits are required to be tried simultaneously. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that direction may be issued to the trial Court to dispose of both the suits expeditiously. I am of the considered view that no mandamus can be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the suits in a time bound manner. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make such a request to the trial Court and the trial Court would consider the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:24597 WP No. 6491 of 2020 C/W WP No. 5311 of 2020 HC-KAR same in accordance with law taking note of its Board. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i) Writ petitions are disposed of. ii) The impugned orders passed by the trial Court is affirmed. The trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of OS.No.84/2019 and OS.No.102/2019 simultaneously on its merits and in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunities to the parties. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PHM,ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26