IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50013 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O GAVIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O SIDDARAGALLA VILLAGE DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 132 2. MASTER PARAMESH S/O PRAKASHAPPA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI. PRAKASHAPPA S/O KAMANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 3. SRI. PRAKASHAPPA S/O KAMANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O SIDDARAGALLA VILLAGE DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 132 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. KAMARAJU S/O LATE POOJARY PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O KAVANADALA VILLAGE DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 132 2. SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O JUNJANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O POOJARAHALLI VILLAGE DODDERI HOBLI MADHURGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 132 3. SRI. DODDA THIMMANNA S/O CHIKKARAMANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT JAVANAYYANAPALYA DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 132 4. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O POOJARAHALLI DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 132 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.08.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI IN O.S.NO.63/2017 ON I.A.NO.6 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the defendants in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.63/2017 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 09.08.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned Principal Civil Judge, Madhugiri having favoured respondent-plantiffs’ application in I.A.No.6 has directed the Police aid for implementation & execution of the subject order of temporary injunction.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the contention of the petitioners that an interlocutory order like the one at hands, can never be executed and more specially with the aid of the Police, appears to be too farfetched an argument. The orders of the Court are meant for implementation and not for the show. The Court passing the order has got all powers for implementing or enforcing their orders, be they interlocutory or final, unless the law otherwise provides. No any such law is notified to this court.
3. There are plenty of precedents where Courts have directed the jurisdictional Police to aid the implementation of even interlocutory orders. The reliance by the petitioners on the decision in Manchegowda and Another Vs. M. Madaiah, (1987) 1 Kant LJ 119 does not come to their aid since the decision is fact specific, and no ratio as sought to be canvassed in this case does not appear to emerge therefrom.
In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits is rejected in limine.
All other contentions of the parties are kept open.
Mds/-
Sd/- JUDGE