IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO. 48870/2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
MOHAMED HABIBULLA S/O LATE GHOUSE BAIG, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.17(JP) GROUND FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, IST MAIN, LIC COLONY, 3RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
REP. BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FARIDA KHATOON W/O MOHAMED HABIBULLA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.17 (JP) GROUND FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, LIC COLONY, 3RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MRS. ASMATHUNNISA W/O LATE GHOUSE BAIG, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, NO.17 (JP), FIRT FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, LIC COLONY, 3RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
... PETITIONER 2. MOHAMMED ILYAS S/O LATE GHOUS BAIG, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.17 (JP), FIRST FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, LIC COLONY, 3RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
3. MOHAMMED SAIFULLA S/O LATE GHOUSE BAIG, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.17 (JP), FIRT FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, LIC COLONY, 3RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
4. MRS.ANEES FATHIMA D/O LATE GHOUSE BAIG, W/O AMJADULLA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.17 (JP), FIRT FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, LIC COLONY, 3RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
5. MRS. NOOR FATHIMA D/O LATE GHOUSE BAIG, W/O RAHAMATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.17 (JP), FIRT FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, LIC COLONY, 3RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
6. MRS. MEHAR FATHIMA D/O LATE GHOUSE BAIG, W/O ALEEM DALVI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.14, 2ND FLOOR, I CROSS, RBI COLONY, III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G S BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.6.9.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1, IN O.S.NO.6431/2016, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, VIDE ANNEX-A AND GRANT THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF INJECTION BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Plaintiff in O.S.No.6431/2016 being aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by LXVIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City issuing emergent notice on I.A.No.1 has preferred this writ petition contending interalia that trial Court has not considered the material documents produced by the plaintiff along with suit documents which establishes that plaintiff has a primafacie case, balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff and refusal to grant an order of temporary injunction would result in irreparable loss and injury being caused to plaintiff.
2. This Court on 08.09.2016 while ordering issuance of notice to respondents, had directed the parties to maintain status quo by observing as under:
“The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner is one of the co- owners of the suit schedule property in OS.No.6431/2016 and that he is presently residing in Saudi Arabia and his wife and children are residing in the ground floor of the suit schedule property and his children are pursuing education in Bengaluru and one of his son is studying in Vaidehi Medical College and that respondents 1 and 6 colluding with each other have created a gift deed and respondent No.6 taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner is attempting to alienate the property and is using force to throw out the wife and children of the petitioner and hence he prays for an interim order as the Lower Court has failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation.”
Said order of status quo has been continued from time to time till date.
3. Though learned Advocates appearing for parties initially made an attempt to canvass their respective arguments with regard to maintainability of the writ petition as well as merits of the case, have fairly submitted that trial Court may be directed to dispose of I.A.I pending before it within a time frame and by reserving liberty to canvass their respective contentions before trial Court.
4. In view of fair submission made by the learned Advocates appearing for parties, this Court is of the considered view that writ petition can be disposed of by directing the City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru adjudicating the suit O.S.No.6431/2016 to dispose of I.A.I filed in said suit expeditiously at any rate, within 30 days from the next date of hearing. It is made clear that on no ground whatsoever, trial Court shall grant any adjournment to either of the parties even if sought for since both the learned Advocate appearing for parties before this Court have admitted and conceded that they would argue the matter before trial Court on the next date of hearing without fail. By placing their submission on record, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the trial Court to hear and dispose of I.A.No.1 expeditiously at any rate, within 30 days from the date of next hearing which is stated to be 01.06.2017.
However, it is made clear that no opinion is expressed with regard to merits of the case. Both parties are directed to canvass their respective arguments before trial Court.
Interim order granted by this Court on 08.09.2016 which has been continued from time to time shall continue till disposal of I.A.No.1 before trial Court. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case.
In view of writ petition having been disposed of, I.A.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and I.A.1/2017 is hereby rejected.
SD/- JUDGE *sp