- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:450 WP No. 147816 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 147816 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. HIDAYATTHULLA S/O MAJEEDSAB HOLALU, AGED ABOUT:45 YEARS, OCC: WELDING, R/AT: HAMSABHAVI ROAD, KATAKARA ONI, BYADAGI, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BYADAGI PASSED IN MISC.APPEAL NO.12 OF 2015 DATED 22.06.2018 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE, BYADAGI, PASSED IN O.S.NO.150 OF 2015 DATED 17.10.2015, ON I..NO,.2 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND DISMISS I.A.NO.2 BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION, WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT AND ETC., 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 Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:450 WP No. 147816 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.10.2015 passed on I.A.No.2, in O.S.No.150/2015 by the learned Civil Judge, Byadagi and the judgment dated 22.06.2018 passed in M.A.No.12/2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadagi. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as under; The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.150/2015 for the relief of mandatory injunction against the petitioner/defendant to rebuild the house and the garage, which was demolished by them, in the suit schedule property. It is contended that, the suit property was granted by the petitioner/defendant, about 60-70 years, as lease, to the grandfather of the respondent/plaintiff and they had constructed a house and are residing in the same premises, and were doing the business of welding. It is contended that, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:450 WP No. 147816 of 2020 petitioner/defendant had a right to receive the rent. However, they had no right to recover the possession from the respondent/plaintiff. On 26.06.2014, the petitioner/defendant issued a letter in the name of the grandfather of the respondent intimating, the illegal construction being put up by the respondent/plaintiff, followed by it, with different notices, and finally, on 27.07.2015, demolished the building. Hence, the suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for a mandatory injunction to reconstruct the building. 3. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.2, seeking an order of injunction, restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. The said application was opposed by the petitioner/defendant by filing the objections. The trial court allowed the said application vide order dated 17.10.2015 and granted an order of temporary injunction, restraining the petitioner/defendant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:450 WP No. 147816 of 2020 from dispossessing the respondent/plaintiff from the suit property by force without due course of law, till the disposal of the suit. The petitioner/defendant, aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.2, preferred an appeal in M.A.No.12/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadgi. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 22.06.2018. The petitioner/defendant, aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.2 dated 19.10.2015 and the judgment dated 22.06.2018 passed in M.A.No.12/2015, filed this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent is guilty of suppression of the facts and has not disclosed the fact of a decree suffered by him in respect of the same property. The trial court ought not to have exercised discretion in favour of the respondent. He - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:450 WP No. 147816 of 2020 submits that, admittedly, the property belongs to the petitioner and the petitioner has taken the possession of the suit property. Hence, the question of granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent, who has no prima facie case, is wholly erroneous. Accordingly, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. There is no dispute that, the suit property belongs to the petitioner. Admittedly, the said property was leased out in favor of the grandfather of the respondent about 40-50 years back and the grandfather of the respondent has constructed a building after obtaining the necessary permission from the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner had issued the notice to the respondent regarding the demolition of the alleged illegal construction raised by the respondent. From the perusal of the notice - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:450 WP No. 147816 of 2020 issued by the petitioner, it discloses that, the respondent is in possession of the suit property. While considering the application for the grant of a temporary injunction, the court is required to consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. Admittedly, the respondent has produced the materials to show that he is in possession of the suit property and the petitioner has granted the permission with regard to electricity connection to the suit property. The trial court, considering the possession of the respondent, has allowed I.A.No.2 and granted an order of temporary injunction. 9. The first appellate court, on re-assessment of the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that the respondent is in possession of the suit property and the petitioner is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent over the suit property. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:450 WP No. 147816 of 2020 respondent. If the injunction as prayed is not granted, the respondent will be put to hardship. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Others vs Chhabi Nath and Others reported in AIR 2015 SC 3269, reiterated the principle that “writ of certiorari was meant to supervise ‘judicial acts’ which included quasi-judicial functions of administrative bodies,” and held that “the expression ‘judicial acts’ is not meant to refer to judicial orders of civil courts. Order of the civil courts stand on a different footing from the order of the authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. Thus, judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari”. 11. Both the courts below, have concurrently recorded a finding of fact against the petitioner. Hence, in view of the above said precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find any error in the impugned order and the judgment passed by the courts below. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:450 WP No. 147816 of 2020 ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22