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.36107 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. DAYANANDA @ B.T.DAYANADA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT: RANJITHA FARMS BOMMASANDRA ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SR. COUNSEL A/W SMT. SHAZAMA TABASSUM S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SURENDRA KUMAR LOYALKA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. SMT. URMILA LOYALKA W/O. SURENDRA KUMAR LOYALKA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.539 VIII MAIN, I CROSS, IV BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 034. ... RESPONDENTS (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.06/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2019 IN M.A.NO.31/2018 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 Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.6/2018 and appellant in M.A.No.31/2018 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the orders of the Courts below, whereby injunctive relief has been concurrently denied. After service of notice the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
(a) the learned trial Judge vide Order dated 14.11.2018 and the learned Lower Appellate Judge vide Order dated 25.07.2019 have concurrently refused to grant relief to the petitioner in the exercise of their discretion and wisdom; such discretionary orders ordinarily are not subject to a deeper scrutiny at the hands of writ court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India vide TRIMBAK GANGADHAR TELANG vs. RAMACHANDRA GANESH BHIDE, AIR 1977 SC 1222, in the absence of demonstrable error apparent on the record;
(b) there is some force in the contention of the respondent-defendants that petitioner may not have any subsisting litigable interest in the suit property since he has sold the same by two registered sale deeds dated 31.10.2002 and 15.12.2003, copies whereof are placed on record by a memo, the same being part of the LCR; however, this is a matter to be looked into by the trial Court after the trial; and, (c) the contention of the petitioner that the KIADB having acquired part of the property has already granted compensation even if assumed to be true, does not advance her case any further.
In the above circumstances this writ petition is dismissed.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY