Vishakanta vs Mangalagowramma

B. Manohar, J.—Petitioners are defendants in OS No. 73/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hunsur. They being aggrieved by the order dated 10.2.2012 passed on I.A. No. 4/2012 in OS No. 73/2011 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hunsur vide Annexure-A have filed these writ petitions.

The respondent herein filed the suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. After service of notice, the petitioners herein filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the plaint and denying title of the plaintiff/respondent herein. The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The Trial Court by its order dated 7.1.2012 granted an interim order restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property while rejecting I.A.II filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC. Inspite of the interim order, the defendants interfered with the possession. In view of that, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 4 seeking for police assistance for implementation of the interim order dated 7.1.2012 passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court by its order impugned allowed the application and directed the police to help the plaintiff to enforce the interim order of injunction granted on 7.1.2012. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

Sri Vijaykumar Bhonsle, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law. No opportunity was granted to file necessary objection to the application seeking for police assistance to enforce the interim order of injunction granted on 7.1.2012. The order impugned is very cryptic and no reasons are assigned to give police assistance. If the petitioners have violated the interim order, the Court can exercise the power under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC. Instead of that, the present application is not maintainable and sought for allowing the writ petitions by quashing the order impugned.

The Advocate appearing for the respondent argued in support of the order impugned passed by the Trial court and contended that the petitioners have not made out the case to interfere with the order of the Trial Court.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the parties and perused the order impugned and other relevant records.

The records clearly disclose that in a suit filed by the plaintiff on I.A. No. 1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, the Trial Court after hearing the parties by its order dated 7.1.2012 granted the order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property while rejecting I.A. No. 2 filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC and subsequently allowed I.A. No. 4 filed under Section 151 of CPC and directed the police to help for enforcement of interim order granted on 7.1.2012. I find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the said order. Admittedly, the interim order granted on 7.1.2012 is in force as on today. Though these writ petitions have been filed in the month of August, 2012, this Court has not granted an interim order. The discretionary order passed by the Trial Court to protect the interest of the parties cannot be interfered in this writ petition. It is open to the petitioners to move the Trial Court for early disposal of the matter. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

These writ petitions stand disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to move the Trial Court for early disposal of the matter.