- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 28038 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MAHESH SHETTY THIMARODI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. VITTAL SHETTY, THIRMARODI HOUSE, UJIRE VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANDAGY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARUNAKAR P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MEERA T. SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O. THARANATH SHETTY, KUNJARPA HOUSE, UJIRE VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DK DISTRICT - 574 214. 2. SMT. SHASHIKALA J SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O. JAYARAMA SHETTY, KEMBARJE HOUSE, BELAL ROAD, UJIRE VILLAGE AND POST, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THARANATH SHETTY K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 4.1.2018 PASSED IN M.A.NO.6/2015 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.124/2014 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady. 2. The said suit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein against five defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from trespassing into and interfering with the land bearing Sy.No.120-4B2 (Described as Plaint A schedule property) and Sy.No.120-8 (Described as Plaint B schedule property). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019 3. Plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.7 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking ad-interim order of injunction. The Trial Court by order dated 26.09.2015 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection plaintiffs preferred appeal in M.A.No.6/2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady (First Appellate Court). The First Appellate Court by order dated 04.01.2018 allowed the said appeal setting aside the order dated 26.09.2015 passed by the Trial Court and consequently allowed application (I.A.No.7) filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint 'A' schedule property till disposal of the suit and further directed the defendants to maintain status quo with regard to possession of plaint 'B' schedule property till disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.2 has preferred the present writ petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Trial Court on appreciation of merits of the claim made by the petitioner had dismissed the application, as he had failed to establish prima facie case entitling him for an interim order, which ought not to have been interfered with by the First Appellate Court. He further submits that First Appellate Court merely relied upon the order passed by this Court in the contempt proceedings in C.C.No.960/2016. The said contempt proceedings were initiated for disobedience/violation of the impugned order dated 16.11.2015 passed in the aforesaid M.A.No.6/2015. He submits that during pendency of the proceedings, contempt Court had directed to hand over the keys of the Temple in dispute to the plaintiffs and further directed the Tahsildar to measure and fence the area. He submits merely based on these proceeding, the First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal, without adverting to the merits of the case. Hence he submits that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs at the outset submits that the impugned order in M.A.No.6/2015 by the First Appellate Court was passed on 04.01.2018 restraining all the five defendants from interfering with 'A' schedule property and to maintain status quo with regard to 'A' schedule property. Whereas the present writ petition has been filed only by defendant No.2, that too on 02.07.2019 after lapse of more than one and half years. He further submits that the First Appellate Court has not only taken into consideration the events that transpired during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, but also has looked into the entitlement of the plaintiffs and their claim based on the title documents. It is only thereafter, the First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion of plaintiffs having established prima facie case, which need not be interfered with. 6. Heard Sri Karunakar P., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Tharanath Shetty K., learned counsel for 1st - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019 respondent/caveator and Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for 2nd respondent. Perused the records. 7. The First Appellate Court while adverting to the claim of the parties has referred to a release deed dated 11.04.2008 and also the revenue records produced by plaintiffs for the year 2013-2014, which has been appreciated by the First Appellate Court to hold that the plaintiffs have indeed made out prima facie case with regard to their right, title and possession in respect of the 'A' schedule property. It is thereafter, the First Appellate Court has taken into consideration the events that had transpired before the Contempt Court, wherein the Contempt Court had directed handing over of the keys with respect to the Temple purported to have been constructed in 'B' schedule property. This Court had also directed the Tahsildar concerned to measure, survey and fence the land with respect to the subject matter of 'B' Schedule property. It is these two factors which have weighed in the mind of the First Appellate Court to grant - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019 interim injunction in respect of 'A' schedule property and an order of status quo in respect of 'B' schedule property. 8. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, though the order is passed by the First Appellate Court on 04.01.2018, the instant writ petition is filed after lapse of more than one and half years. Further this Court has not granted any interim order staying the operation and implementation of the order passed by the First Appellate Court till date, which is close to more than five years. In other words, the order passed by the First Appellate Court is in force for the past more than six years. No prejudice is alleged either. 9. On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the parties submit in unison the matter is set down for cross- examination of PW.2 and the same may be directed to be disposed of expeditiously. 10. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and the events noted as - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10914 WP No. 28038 of 2019 above, this Court at this juncture, do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Court. 11. This writ petition is disposed of directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the matter. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall appreciate the facts of the matter independently without being influenced by the orders passed in this writ petition. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK