IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.1814 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SHIVAMMA, W/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. VANAJAKSHI, D/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 3. SOMASHEKARAIAH, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 4. MAHESHA, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O CHANNAPPAKOPPAL VILLAGE, HEBBALU HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. S.C.VIJAYA KUMAR FOR ... PETITIONERS SMT. SANDHYA VIJAYA KUMAR H.G., ADVOCATES) AND:
1. RAJOJI RAO, S/O CHANDOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O AREKALKOPPAL VILLAGE, HEBBALU HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 602.
2. KUMAR, S/O MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 3. PREMA, W/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 4. NAVEEN, S/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/O SY.NO.88, KALENAHALLI FARM HOUSE, CHANNAPPAKOPPAL ROAD, KASABA HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 602.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. VENUGOPALA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC K.R.NAGAR IN M.A.NO.3/2016 DATED 29.11.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE – F REVERSING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJANAGAR ON I.A.NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULES 1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.498/2015 DATED 14.03.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE – E AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs in O.S.No.498/2015 in a declaration (of easement) suit are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 29.11.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure ‘F’ whereby, in Respondents M.A.No.3/2016, the learned Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Krishnarajanagar has revered the trial Court’s order of temporary injunction.
2. After service of notice, respondents / defendants have entered appearance though their counsel and opposes the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the writ papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
(a) Ordinarily, in matters relating to grant of temporary injunction, the view of the lower Appellate Court is taken as final, subject to all just exceptions, into which the case of the petitioner does not fit.
(b) Even otherwise also, admittedly the order granting injunctive relief to the petitioner-plaintiffs was stayed by the lower Appellate Court in M.A.No.3/2016; and (c) some discrepancy appears to exist in the sale deed dated 07.03.1994, which again is a subject matter to be considered by the trial Court after trial of the suit.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off without granting indulgence, however, requesting the learned trial Judge to try and dispose of the suit preferably within an outer limit of nine months, all contentions of the parties having been kept open.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj