- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2431 WP No. 105202 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 105202 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATH S/O TIMMANNA HIREMANI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: LAXMISINGAKERI, MALMADDI, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN L NEELOPANT & SMT. KAVITA S. JADHAV, ADVS) AND: 1. MAINUDDIN S/O MOHAMMADHUSSAIN KHAZI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS, R/O: KHAZI BUILDING, ATTIKOLLA, DHARWAD. 2. JAILANI S/O MOHAMMADHUSSAIN KHAZI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS, R/O: KHAZI BUILDING, ATTIKOLLA, DHARWAD. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.03.01 11:13:15 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2431 WP No. 105202 of 2018 3. SMT. SHAINAJ W/O REHAMANSAB SOUDAGAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KHAZI BUILDING, ATTIKOLLA, DHARWAD. 4. JAKIRA W/O ARIF BEPARI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MALAMADDI, DHARWAD. 5. SMT. RABIA W/O MOHABOOBSAB KHAZI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MALAMADDI, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T PATIL AND SRI. ROHIT S PATIL, ADVS FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:06.07.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD IN M.A.NO.23/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND DISMISS THE I.A.NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2431 WP No. 105202 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 06.07.2018 passed in M.A. No.23/2017, by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant in O.S. No.225/2016 for the relief of permanent injunction. The respondents/plaintiff filed an application seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court has granted ad interim order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner filed objections to the said application. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, rejected the application filed by the respondents vide order dated 21.09.2017. The respondents - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2431 WP No. 105202 of 2018 aggrieved by the order on I.A.1 filed an appeal in M.A. No.23/2017 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad. The Appellate Court on reassessment of the material on record, allowed the appeal and set aside the order on I.A.I and consequently allowed I.A.I and granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from obstructing lawful possession, use and wahivat of the respondents over the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit in O.S. No.225/2016. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed in M.A. No.23/2017, filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court has recorded a finding that the respondent are in possession of the suit schedule properties without there being a trial. She submitted that the appellate Court has not properly considered the documents produced by the petitioner and she also submits - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2431 WP No. 105202 of 2018 that, if the respondents have approached the Court to the relief of an injunction, they have to establish their possession. She submits that the respondents are not in possession of the suit schedule properties. The appellate Court has committed an error in recording a finding that the respondents are in possession of the suit schedule properties. She further submits that a direction be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, as the suit is of the year 2016, without being influenced by any observations made by the appellate Court in M.A. No.23/2017. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have filed a suit for permanent injunction and filed an application in I.A.I seeking an order of temporary injunction. The trial Court granted an ad interim order of injunction and the same was in force till disposal of I.A.I. He submits that the appellate Court considering the material on record has rightly passed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2431 WP No. 105202 of 2018 the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Though the petitioner and the respondents claim to be owners of their respective shares, but there is a dispute in between the parties with regard to identity and existence of the suit properties. The Appellate Court considering the endorsement issued by the ADLR, has held that the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of CTS No.3A1 measuring 10 guntas, CTS Nos.69/A1A/28B, 28C, 28D and 28E. As there is dispute in regard to the existence of the properties and the respondents had the benefit of an order of temporary injunction during the pendency of I.A.I, the appellate Court, considering the material on record, was justified in passing the impugned order. Though this writ petition was filed in the year 2018, but no interim order was granted. If, the order passed by the appellate Court is continued till the disposal of the suit, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2431 WP No. 105202 of 2018 no injustice would be caused to the petitioner. The appellate Court has recorded a finding that the respondents have madeout a prima facie case for allowing I.A.I, and balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondents, and if, injunction is granted, no hardship would be caused to the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, the Appellate Court was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, without being influenced by any observations made by the appellate Court, in M.A. No.23/2017, and pass the judgment in accordance with law. As the suit is of the year 2016, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2431 WP No. 105202 of 2018 All the contentions of the parties are kept open. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, I.A.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE KMV CT: BSB