Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned advocates & the fact that, M.A.1/12 has been filed against an order passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.2, learned Appellate Judge, instead of passing the impugned order, could have decided the appeal itself.…
Judgment
I B SRI GLRLRAJ KAKKERI. AD\ B H MORD MUNEERPASRA 5/0 SHAIK RUSS AN AGE So YEARS. 0CC BUSINESS RiO MANVI T0V\. FQ MANVI. DIST RAICHUR PIN-584I23 BY SRI SAN JAY A PATIL AND J ALGUSTIN, DS PE’I ITIONIH R RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 22 OF THE’ CONSTITUTION OF’ I\DIA PRM lAG I’O ISSL I’ A V RI F IN THE NATLRE’ OF’ CIRFIORARI. QLASHI\G THE IMPFGNED ORDER PASSFD B’ THE ADDL CIVIL JLDGF SR DA) AT RAIHCLR ON I A NO II IN MISC APPEAL NO I’20I2 DATED 2(L ()V20I2 VIDE ANNEXLREJ This petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, the Court made the following: r 2 ORDER Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.189/2011 pending on the file of Civil Judge at Manvi. I.A.2 was filed in the suit, to pass an order of temporary Injunction. The petitioner being the sole defendant In the suit, filed objections to I.A.2. He has also filed written statement to the suit. Issues have been framed on 05.03.2012. Trial Court rejected I.A.2
12.12.2011. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff filed M.A.1/12. Pending decision in M.A.1/12, Appellate Court has allowed I.A.2, by an order dated 20.03.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the record. It is unnecessary for me to consider the rival contentions, since learned counsel on both sides agreed that M.A.1/12 itself may be directed to be decided at the earliest, by the Appellate Court.
Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned advocates & the fact that, M.A.1/12 has been filed against an order passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.2, learned Appellate Judge, instead of passing the impugned order, could have decided the appeal itself. The same having not been done, the appeal is required to be decided at the earliest, without being influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned order, which are limited for consideration of relief prayed in I.A.2. In the said view of the matter, writ is disposed of. Learned AddI. Senior Civil Judge, Raichur, is directed to decide MA.1/12 within a period of four weeks from the next hearing date of the appeal, by taking up the matter on priority basis. Both parties render ready co-operation for deciding the appeal expeditiously. Needless to observe that, while deciding the appeal, learned Senior Civil Judge shall not be influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned order. Merely because LA2 was allowed, it should not be construed that the appeal is also required to be allowed. Appeal is required to be decided on its merit and in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. sac* JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.