Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 363 (KAR)

Dolappa Alias Dolla v. State of Karnataka

2012-04-16

H.G.RAMESH

body2012
JUDGMENT H.G. RAMESH, J.—Sri J. C. Kumar, learned counsel undertakes to file vakalath for respondent No. 3. He submits that he has already filed vakalath for respondent Nos. 5 to 40. This appeal is by the plaintiff and is directed against an interlocutory order did 24th June, 2011 passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application of the appellant/plaintiff filed under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a direction to preserve the nature of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. 2. I have heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri J. C. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of the plaint schedule property; he is seeking for possession of the plaint schedule property in the suit in question. 3. Learned counsel on both sides, after arguing the matter for some time, submit that the appeal may be disposed of by restraining the plaintiff/appellant from interfering with the possession of respondent Nos. 3 to 40 in respect of the property referred to in Annexure-R9 (which is produced along with the statement of objections filed by respondent No. 3-Sangha) and respondent Nos. 3 to 40 may be restrained from putting up any kind of construction on the plaint schedule property or altering its nature during the pendency of the suit. The property referred to in Annexure-R9 is described therein as under: (Vernacular matter not given) It is not in dispute that Sy. No. 46 referred to above is now Sy. No. 132. It is relevant to state that this land was granted to respondent No. 3-Sangha which is evident from a perusal of Annexure-R9. The plaint schedule property is described in the plaint as under : “All the piece and parcel of Land bearing Sy. No. 46, New Sy. No. 132 of Srigandha-dakaval-Village, Yeshawanthapura-Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring about 2-00 (Two acres), and bounded on: East by - Drainage and Gomala land. West by - Road. North by - Road and property belonging to Vakkaligara Sangha Property. South by - Property belonging to Bettaswamy and Rajajinagar Co-operative Society.” 4. No. 46, New Sy. No. 132 of Srigandha-dakaval-Village, Yeshawanthapura-Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring about 2-00 (Two acres), and bounded on: East by - Drainage and Gomala land. West by - Road. North by - Road and property belonging to Vakkaligara Sangha Property. South by - Property belonging to Bettaswamy and Rajajinagar Co-operative Society.” 4. Learned counsel on both sides also submit that the parties will co-operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit without seeking for any unnecessary adjournments and as the suit is filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. 5. In view of the above, I make the following order: (i) the plaintiff is restrained from interfering with the possession of respondent Nos. 3 to 40 in respect of the property referred to in Annexure R9 which is fully described above, till the disposal of the suit; Respondent Nos. 3 to 40 are restrained from putting up any kind of construction on the plaint schedule property or altering its nature, till the disposal of the suit; (ii) as the suit is filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and as the learned counsel on both the sides assure this Court that the parties will not seek for any unnecessary adjournments, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously and in any event, within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms in modification of the order impugned herein. 7. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. No. 1/2011 filed for temporary injunction stands dismissed. 8. Appeal disposed of.