IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.14162 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN M.S. PALAKSHA S/O M.K. SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, 7TH MAIN 22ND CROSS, M.C. LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560040 ... PETITIONER.
(By SRI. RAMACHANDRAN R., ADV.) AND DR. M. VENKATASWAMY S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO. 11/3, 15TH MAIN 25TH CROSS, H.S.R. LAYOUT 3RD SECTOR (YELLUKUNTE) BANGALORE – 560 102 ... RESPONDENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT TO; (a) EXPEDITE IN FRAMING THE ISSUES AND COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF TRIAL IN O.S. 5233/2015 PENDING BEFORE XII ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY WITHIN TIME FRAME; EXPEDITE THE HEARING OF MISC. PET NO. 735/2015 WHICH IS BEING HEARD ALONG WITH THE MAIN SUIT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.5233/2015. That suit has been filed by him seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and a mandatory injunction against the defendant to remove the structure being put up illegally in the suit property and also a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant restraining his henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite an interim order being granted in his favour, the respondent, in gross violation of that interim order, is continuing to put up construction on the suit property.
Petitioner’s counsel further submits that an application has been filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the said application has also been allowed. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit is pending since the year 2015 and therefore, a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a timeframe to be granted by this court. He submits that any delay in the disposal of the suit would cause injustice to the petitioner herein.
3. It is noted from the material on record that the suit is one for declaration and consequential injunction. The suit was filed on 17.06.2015. The relief sought by the petitioner is to issue a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2015 and a policy decision taken to give priority to old cases and dispose those case at the earliest, I find at this stage or presently no direction can be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in an expeditious manner. However, even in the absence of such a direction being issued, petitioner is at liberty to request the Trial Court for a speedy disposal of the suit. If such a request is made, the Trial Court is directed to consider the same having regard to the issues raised in the suit and the stage of the suit.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KS