IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.41644 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI MUNISWAMAPPA S/O. LATE AGADURAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT. NO.89, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-500 068 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.A.VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI NARAYANA REDDY S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560068 2. SRI. K. GANESH S/O. S.P.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 3. SRI. S.K.MOHAN S/O. S.P.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R2 & R3 ARE R/AT NO.211 2ND MAIN ROAD SINGASAMDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560068 4. SRI DASHARATHA REDDY S/O LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560068 5. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE AGADURAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560068 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH NO.28) IN OS.NO.7373/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.7373/2011 is complaining before the writ Court against the rejection of his application for rectification of the decree, be deleting the word “temporary” therefrom and introducing “permanent” in its stead.
2. The suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure – C, the decreetal portion reads as under:
“The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for with costs.
The defendants or their agents are hereby restrained from order of temporary injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff”.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is against the employment of the expression “temporary injunction” instead of “permanent injunction” in the decree. The anxiety of the petitioner is because of the presence of the former expression and the absence of the later one.
4. The Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. DR.KARAN SINGH AND OTHERS, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 500 has held that the basic rules of interpreting Court judgments are the same as those of construing other documents. The only difference is that the judges are presumed to know the tendency of parties concerned to interpret the language in the judgments differently to suit their purposes and the consequent importance that the words have to be chosen very carefully so as not to give room for controversy. The principle is that if the language in a judgment is plain and unambiguous and can be reasonably interpreted in only one way it has to be understood in that sense, and any involved principle of artificial construction has to be avoided. Further, if there be any doubt about the decision, the entire judgment has to be construed, and a stray sentence or a casual remark cannot be treated as a decision. Court orders should be understood after reading them in entirety and not keeping the commonsense in cold storage. The superfluous words need not be given much significance, out of the context. This being one such case no significance can be attached to word ‘temporary’ when what is meant is ‘permanent’ only.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY