IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NOS.58007-58009 OF 2013(GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1. Sri. B.N. Rajendra, Son of S. Nagaraju, Aged about 43 years, C/o G.K.B. Opp. To Lab. Pvt. Ltd., Rama Plaza, C.M.H. Road, Next to Titan Show Room, Indiranagar, Bengaluru – 560 038.
2. Sri. B.N. Umesh, Son of S. Nagaraju, Aged about 33 years.
3. Sri. S. Nagaraju, S/o Sri. Musuvegowdara Subbanna, Aged about 70 years.
Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Terina Bedi (Cart Street) or I.O.B. Road, Bannur Town, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District – 570 001.
... Petitioners (By Sri.Hiremath M.V., Advocate) AND 1. Sri. Somashekhar, S/o Late Siddegowda, Aged about 45 years.
2. Appugowda, Son of Late Siddegowda, Aged about 42 years.
3. Srinivasa Murthy, Son of Late Siddegowda, Aged about 40 years.
4. Krishna, Son of Late Siddegowda, Aged about 35 years.
5. Smt. Thimmamma, W/o Late Siddegowda, Aged about 70 years.
All are residents of Therina Bedi (Cart Street) or I.O.B. Road, Bannur Town, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District – 570 001.
... Respondents (By Sri. P. Nataraju, Advocate for C/R-3 and also for R-1, 2, 4 and 5) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, T. Narasipura in M.A.No.6/2013 vide Annex-J and order dated 11.11.2013 passed by Civil Judge & JMFC, T. Narasipura on I.A. No.1 in O.S.No.252/2013 vide Annex-E etc.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER These writ petitions are filed by the plaintiffs against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. After arguing the matter for sometime, Sri.
Hiremath M.V., learned counsel appearing for petitioner fairly submits that the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the very suit itself, since there is no interim order from 11.10.2013, on which date the injunction was refused by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court on 10.12.2013. According to the learned counsel, the matter is posted for plaintiff’s evidence before the trial Court.
3. Without adverting to the merits and demerits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and taking into consideration the suit was filed in the year 2013, it is suffice to direct the trial Court to expedite the very suit itself subject to the co-operation of the parties to the lis.
4. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of and the trial court is directed to expedite the suit subject to co-operation of counsel for both the parties to the lis.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM