IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50900 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) Between:
SMT.CHETHANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O PRABHAKARA REDDY, W/O HARI BATHINENI, RESIDING AT NO.6, CHOWDAPPA BADAVANE, K.NARAYANAPURA CROSS, THANISANDRA POST, BENGALURU – 560043.
NOW RESIDING AT NO.6, KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.12, RAGHU NIVASA, 1ST FLOOR, APPANNA GOWDA ROAD, HANUMANTHARAYAPPA LAYOUT, K.NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU – 560077.
(BY SRI.KUMAR.S.J, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT.MANGAL MAHADEV KUMBHAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O MAHADEV TUKARAMA KUMBHAR, RESIDING AT NO.18/A, KUMBHARCHAL, GONDHALE NAGAR, HADAPSAR, MOHEMADWADI, PUNE, MAHARASTRA – 411028.
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI.SHIV KUMAR YADAV, S/O LATE BISHAMBER DAYAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, ... PETITIONER RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.40, SRI.DATTA TOWNSHIP, KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, IAF POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560063.
(BY SRI.P.N.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.451/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-P, AS ILLEGAL AND QUASH THE SAME AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the defendant in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.451/2014 is invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 09.07.2019 made by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli on I.A.No.1/2014 and the order dated 21.08.2019 made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, in M.A.No.19/2019, copies whereof are respectively at Annexures P & R whereby the status-quo order earlier granted has been transformed into an injunctive order.
2. The respondent/plaintiff having entered caveat through her counsel resists the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because two Courts have recorded concurrent findings tentatively in their wisdom and discretion as to granting of injunctive relief to the respondent herein; such discretionary orders ordinarily are not subject to deeper scrutiny at the hands of Writ Court exercising the limited, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India vide Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Company, in (2003) 3 SCC 524.
4. The contention of the petitioner that the status- quo order was in existence since 2014 and it is only now the injunctive order is granted and therefore, the parties should be directed to maintain status-quo is not sustainable regard being had to a wealth of material which the courts below have treated in a right perspective.
5. However, the justice of the case requires that there should be a direction to the learned trial Judge to try and dispose of the suit which is about 5 years old, within a time bound manner.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial judge to dispose of the suit preferably within a period of seven months, without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned orders.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE NS