IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.26565 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY S/O VERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O. DEVANUR VILLAGE DODDAKAVALANDE HOBLI NANJANAGUD TALUK MYSORE DIST.
(By Ms. B.N. MANJULA, ADV., FOR Mr. R.C. NAGARAJA, ADV.,) AND:
1. SRI. SHIVANAGAPPA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
2. SMT. SUMA @ SIDDARAJI W/O SHIVANAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O. DUGGAHALLI VILLAGE HULLAHALLI HOBLI NANJANAGUD TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT.
(By Mr. M. SHIVAPRAKASH AND … PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS Mr. S. KASINAGALINGAM, ADVS., FOR R2 (ABSENT) R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside/quash the order dated 24.4.2014 passed in MA No.24/12, by the Sr. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nanjangud produced at Annex-A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Heard Smt.B.N.Manjula, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission.
None had appeared on behalf of the respondents on 04.07.2018 as well as on 19.12.2018. Today also, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 24.04.2014 by which the appeal filed by the respondents under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short), has been allowed and the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for temporary injunction has been set aside and the petitioner has been restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondents over the suit schedule property.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner has filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents. Along with the plaint, an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code was also filed. The Trial Court, by an order dated 03.11.2012, rejected the application for temporary injunction. The respondents filed an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, by the impugned order dated 24.04.2014, has allowed the appeal and has restrained the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the respondents over the suit property.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have perused the records. This petition is pending before this Court since 2014 in which an ad interim order was granted on 09.10.2014 directing the parties to maintain status quo. The aforesaid order has remained in force till today and a period of more than four years has expired. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to apprise this Court whether the civil suit filed by the petitioner has been decided by the Trial Court or not. In the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in case civil suit is still pending, the Trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceeding within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Till the proceeding in the civil suit is concluded, ad interim order granted by a Bench of this Court on 09.10.2014, shall continue.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV