IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.34316 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI D V KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKA VENKATARAYAPPA @ VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
2. SRI S M SRINIVAS S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
3. SMT NAREMMA W/O SRI D V KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
4. SRI D K VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE DURGAM KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT DEVAPPALLI VILLAGE, MUNGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALAPURA DISTRICT-562 125.
...PETITIONERS (By Sri NARAYANA SWAMY V.K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI D P SUBBARAYAPPA S/O TALARI PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, GOWNAPALLI VILLAGE, ROYALPADU HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK-563 125 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER BUTLAHALLI POLICE STATION, BUTLAHALLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT- 562125.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri CHANDRAPPA.T., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; Smt.ANITTHA.R., HCGP FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.06.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.13 IN O.S.NO.396/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT CHINTAMANI AT ANNEXURE-E2, AS BEING ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
* * * * O R D E R Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for Respondent No.2.
The defendants No.1, 2, 10 and 11 have filed the present writ petition against the order dated 29.06.2017 on I.A.No.13 made in O.S.No.396/2014 granting police protection to the plaintiffs to implement the order of temporary injunction dated 06.06.2016.
2. The first respondent and one Smt.Rathnamma filed a suit in O.S.No.396/2014 for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties morefully described in the schedule to the plaint contending that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest in respect of the suit schedule properties.
3. The defendants filed the Written Statement denying the entire plaint averments and contended that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs have no right to file the suit.
4. The plaintiffs also filed an application I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction reiterating the averments made in the plaint. The same was opposed by the defendants by filing objections. The trial Court after considering the application and objections, by the order dated 06.06.2016 allowed I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. Against the said order, defendants filed M.A. No.7/2016 before the Senior Civil Judge, Chinthamani and the same is pending for adjudication.
5. In the meantime, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.13 under Section 151 of C.P.C. of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the jurisdictional police for implementation of the injunction order granted by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs on 06.06.2016. The said application was resisted by the defendants. The Trial Court after considering the application and objections, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2017 allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs and directed Station House Officer, jurisdictional Police Station to give necessary help to the plaintiffs to implement the order of temporary injunction dated 06.06.2016. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. When the matter was posted for arguments on 28.11.2017, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants after arguing the matter for sometime submitted that the defendants have never disobeyed the order passed by the Trial Court and they will never disobey the order of Trial Court in the future and to that effect, they will file an affidavit before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioners herein have filed an affidavit before this Court stating that they will undertake not to interfere with the extent of land measuring 7 acres 15 guntas including 6 acre 36 guntas (out of total 14 acres 11 guntas) as per the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule properties in O.S.No.396/2014, subject to the result of pending proceedings in M.A. No.7/2016 and W.A.Nos.1573-1577/2014. The said affidavit dated 30.11.2017 is placed on record.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is not in dispute that the Trial Court after considering the application and objections, by an order dated 06.06.2016 recorded a specific finding that the plaintiffs has made out a prima-facie case and balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs by the order dated 06.06.2016. Admittedly, against the said order, M.A.No.7/2016 was filed by the defendants before the C.J. and JMFC, Chintamani on l4.06.2016. Till today, no interim order has been passed by the Trial Court and the matter is still pending between the parties. In the meanwhile, application came to be filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. for police protection. The Trial Court after considering the entire material on record, recorded a finding that the objections filed for police protection by the defendants will hold no water in the eye of law. Therefore, police protection is granted.
9. In view of the undertaking/affidavit filed by the petitioners/defendants before this Court that they will not interfere with the suit schedule properties morefully described in the plaint till the disposal of M.A. No.7/2016 and W.A.Nos.1573- 1577/2014, it is suffice to dispose of the writ petition holding that the defendants shall not interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule properties of the plaintiffs morefully described in the plaint in O.S.No.396/2014 pending disposal of M.A. No.7/2016 and W.A.Nos.1573- 1577/2014. The writ petition is disposed of in view of the undertaking filed by the petitioners/ defendants before this Court.
At this stage, Sri.Chandrappa, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he has already filed an application for disobedience. It is for the Trial Court to pass orders in accordance with law.
It is made clear that the police protection is only in respect of suit schedule properties and police cannot misuse and disturb the properties of the defendants, if any.
With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE dh