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.58335 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI VISHWESHWARA S/O LATE SHINGRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOSA ANANDUR VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.
(BY SRI.J.ARAVIND BABU, ADV.) AND:
K.V.RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 438.
(BY SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD SR.ADV. FOR SRI.N.MANJUNATHA, ADV.) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.326/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIOANL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.J.Aravind Babu., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.M.S.Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior counsel for Sri.N.Manjunatha, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 03.03.2015, by which appeal preferred by the respondents under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) has been allowed and the order of the Trial Court directing maintenance of status quo dated 05.08.2014 has been set aside.
4. Facts giving raise to the filing of the petition are that the petitioner has filed a suit against the respondent seeking the relief of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession over the suit schedule property as well as restraining him from cutting and removing the Tamarind Tree and for other consequential benefits. The petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code restraining the respondent from cutting the Tamarind Tree situate on the suit schedule property. The Trial Court by an order dated 05.08.2014 directed the parties to maintain status quo. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court by an order dated 03.03.2015 has set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed his appeal.
5. A Bench of this Court by an ad interim order dated 08.06.2016 had directed the parties to maintain status quo. The aforesaid has remained in the aforesaid suit till today. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that this writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings in the suit in a time bound manner. It was further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent that during the pendency of the petition before this Court, the petitioner has cut the trees situated on the suit schedule property and he is liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- in the event of the success of the respondent. However, the aforesaid fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he has submitted that the aforesaid issue has to be adjudicated by the Trial Court. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case and taking into account the fact that the civil suit is pending since 05.08.2015, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings of the suit within eight months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to state that the parties shall cooperate with the Trial Court for early decision of the suit and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is further directed that the issue whether or not the petitioner has cut the trees situate on the suit land shall also be decided by the Trial Court while deciding the suit without being influenced by the order passed by this Court. The ad-interim order granted by this Court on 08.06.2018 shall continue till the suit is decided by the Trial Court.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS