IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.36106 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. B.T. DAYANANDA REDDY @ DAYANANDA S/O. LATE B.N. THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. DAYANANDA @ B.T. DAYANANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT R/AT: RANJITHA FARMS BOMMASANDRA ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT–560 099 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SR. COUNSEL A/W SMT. SHAZAMA TABASSUM S., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. URMILA LOYALKA W/O SURENDRA KUMAR LOYALKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.539 VIII MAIN, I CROSS, IV BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 034. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2018 ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.70/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2019 IN M.A.NO.30/2018 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL AS PER ANNEXURE – A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners being the defendants in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.70/2018 is grieving against the orders of the Court below, whereby the respondent-plaintiff has been granted an order of temporary protection qua the subject property. After service of notice the respondent having entered appearance through her counsel opposes the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant interference in the matter for the following reasons:
(i) in 2nd petitioner’s injunctive suit in O.S.No.6/2018 in respect of the very same property, the very same Courts below have refused injunctive relief prima facie finding that the petitioners do not have possession/occupation because of two registered sale deeds dated 31.10.2002 and 15.12.2003, whereby the 2nd petitioner has already sold the subject property; a similar view is taken by this Court in the connected Writ Petition No.36107/2019 between the same parties disposed off today;
(ii) both the Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioners on the basis of some evidentiary material placed on record by the parties; such discretionary orders do not merit deeper examination at the hands of writ court under Article 227 of the Constitution vide TRIMBAK GANGADHAR TELANG vs. RAMACHANDRA GANESH BHIDE, AIR 1977 SC 1222.
In the above circumstances the writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. However, the observations made herein above or in the impugned orders shall not influence the trial and decision making in the suits.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY