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.8205 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1. MR. RAMESHA, S/O LATE MARIGOWDA @ CHIKKAMARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 2. SMT. CHANDRAMMA, W/O LATE MARIGOWDA @ CHIKKAMARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SURAPURA VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571442. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA, W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SRI. NAGEGOWDA, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SURAPURA VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571442. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY D. HOSMATH FOR SRI.D.S. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.43/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the defendants in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.43/2013, are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 26.03.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure – A, whereby, the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Kollegal, having favoured respondent-plaintiffs’ application filed under section 151 of CPC, 1908, has directed the jurisdictional police to aid the implementation of the interim injunctive orders.
2. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and oppose 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 since two courts have already granted injunctive relief; the orders of granting such relief need to be implemented with the aid of the police, if need arises; this court and other High Courts have consistently held that police aid can be granted by courts for enforcement of ad interim orders of injunction.
4. Even otherwise also, the order of injunction requires to be implemented by the court which in its discretion has directed the assistance of the police for that purpose; the orders of the court are meant for implementation and not for anything else; therefore, in the fact-matrix of the case, impugned order cannot be faltered.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs that they would confine the enforcement of injunctive orders only to the suit properties and that they would not interfere with the remaining [24 cents] of property in suit schedule ‘B’, is placed on record.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc