- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11850 WP No. 103504 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 103504 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: IRAYYA S/O. TIPPAYYA PUJARI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. BASAVANAGAR, BANAHATTI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, CMC, BANAHATTI, AT: RAMPUR, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311. 2. SURESH S/O. SHENKREPPA NINGOJI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, HIMSELF CALLING AS CHAIRMAN OF SRI. MAHADEV GUDI, SEVA SAMITI REG. UNDER SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT. 3. VASANT S/O. JNANADEV BHASME, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC:. WEAVING, R/O. NEAR VAIBHAV TALKIES, BASAVANAGAR, BANAHATTI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311, CALLING HIMSELF AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF SRI. MAHADEV GUDI, SEVA SAMITI. 4. SURESH S/O. CVHANNABASAPPA SORAGANVI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. NEAR SADASHIVAPPAN DEVASTHANA, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11850 WP No. 103504 of 2021 BASAVANAGAR, BANAHATTI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311, CALLING HIMSELF AS SECRETARY OF SRI. MAHADEV GUDI, SEVA SAMITI. 5. NAGAPPA S/O. MAHADEV MANDI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: WEAVING, R/O. BACKSIDE OF BASAVANNA DEVAR TEMPLE, BASAVANAGAR, BANAHATTI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311. 6. SANGAPPA S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BALAVALAGIDAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. NEAR SADASHIVAPPAN TEMPLE, BASAVANAGAR, BANAHATTI, TQ. RABKHAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311. 7. MAHANING S/O.DUNDAPPA SORAGAVI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC:PRIVATE WORK, R/O. OPPOSITE OF VAIBHAV TALKIES, BASAVANAGAR BANAHATTI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587311, CALLING HIMSELF AS MEMBER OF SRI. MAHADEV GUDI, SEVA SAMITI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. K. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADV. FOR R2 TO R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.09.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BANAHATTI, IN MA NO.5/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.10.2020 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BANAHATTI ON IA NO.2 IN OS NO.130/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN IA NO.2 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS NO.130/2020, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11850 WP No. 103504 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Banahatti, in MA No.5/2020 vide Annexure-F and the impugned order dated 03.10.2020 passed by Civil Judge and JMFC at Banahatti on IA No.2 in OS No.130/2020 vide Annexure-E and allow the application in IA No.2 filed by the petitioner in OS No.130/2020, in the interest of justice and equity. (b) Pass such order or orders which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Girish A.Yadawad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for relief of permanent injunction against defendant No.1 restraining him from evicting the plaintiff from the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11850 WP No. 103504 of 2021 schedule property and further permanent injunction against defendants No.2 to 7 restraining them from interfering in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that, in the said suit, the petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction as the defendants were interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property which came to be rejected by the trial Court by recording incorrect findings and contrary to the material on record. It is submitted that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case with regard to the title and possession. However, the trial Court has not appreciated the same. Similarly, the Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court, which requires interference. Thus, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Sri Shivaraj P.Mudhol, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 7 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and submits that both the Courts have concurrently held that the property claimed by the petitioner does not tally with the suit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11850 WP No. 103504 of 2021 schedule which has been rightly recorded by the Appellate Court at Para 16 of the impugned order. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 7 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 6. The pleading and material on record indicate that the petitioner filed O.S.No.130/2020. Same is pending on the file of Civil Judge, Banahatti. Said suit is for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from eviction as well as from interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the suit schedule property which has been granted by the Rabkavi Municipality and the respondents are interfering with his possession. In support of his title and possession, he placed reliance on the Hakkupatra and other documents. The Trial Court considering the same has come to conclusion that the petitioner has not made out prima facie - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11850 WP No. 103504 of 2021 case to grant temporary injunction and rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vide order dated 03.10.2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed M.A.No.5/2020. The Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and rejected the appeal. It is to be noticed that the suit is of the year 2020 and has not proceeded further. The parties to the proceedings have raised various contentions with regard to the title and possession. The same is required to be adjudicated by the Trial Court during a full pledged trial. I am of the considered view that without going into the merits and demerits of the case of the parties to the proceeding, the interest of justice would be met, if the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. This Court vide order dated 22.09.2021 has directed the parties to maintain status quo and the same is continued till this day. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case and the Trial Court is to consider the suit on its merits. Considering the same, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11850 WP No. 103504 of 2021 ORDER a. The writ petition is disposed off. b. The parties in O.S.No.130/2020 are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit ‘A’ property till disposal of the suit. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH, CLK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11