- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11971 WP No. 103184 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 103184 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI MAHAMED IQBAL S/O. ABDUL MAJID PATVEGAR, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SATABACHE GALLI, ATHANI, TAL: ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ATHANI, THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER. 2. SHRI AQEEL S/O. MUNEER BARGIR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHANTI NAGAR, ATHANIK, TAL: ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND CASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5/4/2021 PASSED BY THE COURT 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI IN O.S.NO.287/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11971 WP No. 103184 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: “1) Issue a writ of certiorari and cash the impugned order dated 5/4/2021 passed by the Court 3rd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani in O.S.No.287/2007 vide Annexure-E. 2) Issue any other order, writ or direction to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the present facts and circumstances.” 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondent/Authority restraining it from demolishing the shops of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 without due process of law. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, high handedly, the respondent/Authority demolished the shops and thereafter, an application is filed seeking amendment of the plaint seeking additional relief of mandatory injunction, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court without any justifiable reason. It is submitted that the trial Court has assigned the reason stating that the prayer sought is beyond the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11971 WP No. 103184 of 2021 period of limitation, which is factually incorrect, as Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was kept in abeyance from 22.03.2020 till March, 2022. He further submits that the issue relating to limitation can be gone into by framing the issues by the trial Court and rejection of the application is incorrect. Hence, he seeks to allow the application, as the relief is a consequential one. 4. Per contra, Sri.Arvind D.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Authority supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the plaintiff No.1/petitioner was well aware about the demolition of the shops in the year 2017. He has kept quiet for a long time and filed an application only on 24.02.2021. Taking note of the same, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. It is submitted that in para 3 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have categorically stated that the respondent is the owner of the shops and hence, their prayer for the relief of mandatory injunction in the suit would not arise. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11971 WP No. 103184 of 2021 5. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The pleading and material available on record indicate that the petitioner filed OS No.287/2007 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Athani for a relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining it or its officials from demolishing the shops of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 without due process of law. The subject matter of the suit is CTS Nos. 3031 and 3032. The respondent filed a written statement and trial was proceeded. The petitioner filed an application in I.A. No.VIII under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for amendment of the plaint and seeking to incorporate the prayer for relief of mandatory injunction on the ground that, during the pendency of the suit, the defendant illegally removed the construction and sought for restoration of the construction of the plaintiffs to its original position. The application is accompanied with the affidavit. A perusal of the application and the affidavit indicate that the petitioner intends to seek relief of mandatory injunction based on subsequent event after filing of the suit. It is to be noticed that the prayer of mandatory injunction is sought in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11971 WP No. 103184 of 2021 application. However, there is no amendment sought to the pleading to incorporate any contentions supporting the said relief. Be that it may be. It is to be further noticed that the petitioner has filed I.A. No.VI in the said proceedings, wherein the petitioner has categorically stated that the respondent/Authority in the year 2017 under the guise of widening the road at Ambedkar Circle, Athani illegally demolished the structures. When things stood thus, the petitioners knowing fully well, kept quiet for so many years and filed an application for amendment only on 24.02.2021. The trial Court taking note of the same and also considering the fact that the prayer sought is beyond the period of limitation, rejected the application. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 4 of the Limitation Act was kept in abeyance is taken note of only for the purpose of rejection as admittedly, demolition of the suit schedule property has taken place in the year 2017 and the lockdown due to Covid-19 had commenced only on 22.03.2020 and it is also noticed that even during the period of lockdown, the Court proceedings were continued. Hence, the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay cannot be accepted. The trial Court taking note of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11971 WP No. 103184 of 2021 these facts has rightly come to the conclusion that the application is liable to be rejected. I do not find any error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court calling for interference in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2