IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR M.F.A. NO. 5139 OF 2016 (CPC) BETWEEN Sri. Manjunath N.V. S/o. Sri. Venkateshappa Aged about 34 years R/at No.30, 23rd Main 5th Cross, Marenahalli J.P. Nagar II Phase Bangalore – 560 078. ... Appellant (By Sri. P. Chandrashekar, Advocate For Smt. Vijetha R. Naik, Advocate) AND Sri. Muthappa S/o. Late C. Kempanna aged about 55 years R/at No.370/33, 27th Cross Raghavendra Layout Hulimavu, B. G.Road Bangalore – 560 076. ... Respondent (By Sri. N. Chandrashekar, Advocate & Sri. M. N. Venkatesh, Advocate for C/R) This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC, against the order dated 01.06.2016 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.2569/2016 on the file of the 68th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, allowing I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
This MFA coming on for orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant / defendant aggrieved by the order passed by the 68th Addl. City Civil and Sesions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-69), wherein I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.2569/2016 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC came to be allowed restraining the defendant, his men, servants, etc, from obstructing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.
3. Factual matrix of this appeal are as under : The plaintiff/respondent herein instituted a suit in O.S.No.2569/2016 in respect of the suit schedule properties relating to property bearing Sy.No.2 measuring 9.07 guntas situate in Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore south taluk. The claim of the plaintiff is that, late Kempanna has acquired the land by way of grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal by its order dt. 27.051982. The said land was regranted to him. Subsequently, one of the joint family members of the plaintiff filed O.S.3589/2008 seeking partition and separate possession. The said suit ended in a compromise and final decree was drawn, under which plaintiff was allotted 9.07 guntas out of 2 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.2 and 6.4 guntas in Sy.No.4/2 of Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore south taluk.
4. Several contentions have been taken by the plaintiff in the suit. The defendant also filed his written statement in the aforesaid suit.
5. That the plaintiff has filed I.A.1/2016 seeking grant of ad interim order against the defendant. The court below after hearing the arguments advanced by both parties, passed the impugned order restraining the defendant, his men, servants, etc, from obstructing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property pending disposal of the suit. That impugned order has been challenged in this appeal, urging various grounds.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent submits that the case in O.S.2569/2016 is pending before the trial Court and it is set down for cross examination of the plaintiff.
7. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that he had taken various contentions in the plaint and the operative portion of the order passed is against the defendant restraining his men and servants from obstructing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, pending disposal of the suit, whereas the suit is filed against the defendant for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. His contention is reflected in the material which finds place in the records.
8. Therefore, at this stage, for disposal of the appeal, it is not required to go into the dispute relating to the suit schedule property. However, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent submit that they shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the case in O.S.2569/2016.
9. Keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties it is just and proper to grant six months time to the court below to dispose of the matter. Both the plaintiff as well as defendant shall co-operate by adducing evidence, either oral or documentary, in accordance with law.
10. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of.
Both the parties in the suit shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the suit, in any event, not later than six months.
The appellant and the respondent shall appear before the Court in O.S.No.2569/2016 on 17.01.2019, without waiting for the notice.
In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2016 do not survive for consideration.
Consequently, they are rejected.
If any LCR is received in this appeal, the Registry is directed to return the same to the concerned court below, forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-