IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.4504 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1. SRI SHADAKSHARI C.L, S/O LATE C.C.LAKSHMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SRI PRAKASHA C.S, S/O LATE C.L. SHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 & 2 ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/O K CHATNAHALLI VILLAGE, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK.
3. SRI SHIVA KUMAR C.S, S/O LATE C.L. SHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 4. SMT NIRMALA, W/O LATE C.L. SHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PETITIONERS 3 & 4 ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O DUGLAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI ANUSHA ASUNDI FOR A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND SRI SANTHOSHA C.A, S/O C.L. ANANDA, AGED 28 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND EMPLOYEE AT TOYOTA KRILOSKAR PVT CO. BENGALURU PERMANENT R/O K.CHATNAHALLI VILLAGE, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SMT. SUMA C.B, W/O C.L. ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O K. CHATNAHALLI VILLAGE, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, TARIKERE DTD:6.7.2015 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.246/2014 AND IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE DTD:2.12.2016 IN M.A.NO.14/2015 ALLOW THEIR WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the defendants in a declaratory suit in O.S.No.246/2014, are grieving before the writ court against the concurrent orders of the Courts below whereby temporary injunctive relief has been granted in favour of respondent- plaintiff herein, vide the impugned orders dated 6.7.2015 and 2.12.2016 that are at Annexures – D & E. After service of notice, the respondent-plaintiff having entered appearance through his counsel, resists the Writ Petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court declines to interfere in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) the injunctive relief has been granted by the court below not only acting upon the registered WILL in question but also a compromise decree in O.S.No.217/2010 which specifically mentions each of the parties thereto having taken separate possession of the subject property and one of such parties happens to be the testator of the said WILL; thus, both the orders are well reasoned;
(b) in the matter of grant of temporary protection by the court below, ordinarily the writ court does not interfere if the views of the court below are concurrent, unless a very strong case meriting the indulgence is made out; no such exceptional case has been made out by the petitioners herein; and, (c) the above apart the impugned orders being a product of exercise of discretion by two court below, this court does not find them fit for a deeper scrutiny in its limited supervisory jurisdiction u/a 227 of the Constitution of India, vide SADHANA LODH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, (2003) 3 SCC 524.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is rejected.
The learned Trial Judge is requested to try & dispose off the suit as expeditiously as possible.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc