AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The plaintiffs filed the present writ petition against the order dated 06.02.2017 rejecting the prayer for extension of interim prayer.
The plaintiffs filed suit for perpetual injunction contending that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties morefully described in the plaint. The trial Court by an order dated 02.07.2016, after hearing the plaintiffs and 4th defendant directed
the 4 th defendant to maintain status-quo till the next date. The 4th defendant filed written statement on 23.09.2016 and objections to I.A.No.1.
On 21.10.2016, the trial Court referred the case to Bengaluru Mediation Centre for settlement. On 25.01.2017, the trial Court having noticed that
the matter was not settled, posted the case for plaintiffs evidence and extended the interim order subject to completing of examination-in-chief and
posted the matter on 06.02.2017. On 06.02.2017, the plaintiffs filed application for amendment and for initiating contempt proceedings against the
4th defendant for willfull disobedience of the order dated 02.07.2016. The plaintiffs also filed an application for extension of interim order. The trial
Court rejected the prayer for extension of interim order mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs have not complied with the order dated 25.01.2017
i.e., for completing of the chief examination. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
Sri Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the prayer for
extension of interim prayer mainly on the ground that the petitioners instead of completing the chief examination as per the order dated 25.01.2017,
filed application for amendment which is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. The trial Court ought to have extended the interim order
granted earlier and considered the application on merits. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
Sri Ganesh Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.4 fairly submits that the interim order granted by the trial Court may be extended and the
trial Court may be directed to consider the application - I.A.No.1 on merits, since the 4 th defendant has already filed objections. Said fair
submission is placed on record.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the trial Court has granted interim order after hearing the plaintiffs and 4
th defendant. Subsequently, the interim order was extended on 25.01.2017, subject to condition that the plaintiffs should complete the
examination-in-chief and posted the matter on 06.02.2017. On 06.02.2017, the plaintiffs instead of completing the examination-in- chief, filed an
application for amendment. Therefore, the trial Court did not extend the interim order. Mere filing of application by the plaintiffs for amendment is
not a ground to reject the prayer for extension of interim order. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that subsequent to the
order dated 06.02.2017, the amendment application is allowed.
In view of the above, without adverting into the merits of the case, the trial Court is directed to consider I.A.No.1 for temporary injunction after
hearing both the parties and also consider the objections filed by the 4th defendant and decide the application in accordance with law. In the
meanwhile, the interim order granted by the trial Court earlier on 25.01.2017 is extended and the parties are directed to maintain status-quo till the
consideration of I.A.No.1 in accordance with law.
With the above observations, petition is disposed of.
In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2017 for vacating stay would not arise. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 is disposed of.