Sri. Prabhakar vs The Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka and Others

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—The Petitioner was the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 59/2007 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Sri Rangapatna and the Respondents were the Defendants. The Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. According to him, the said land was granted to him by the State Government. The Defendants have filed written statement denying the plaint averments. According to them, the said land has already been acquired for a public purpose. The court below dismissed the said suit by its judgment and decree dated 20.8.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Plaintiff filed an appeal in R.A No. 63/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Sri Rangapatna. In the said appeal, he filed I.A. No. 3 seeking grant of an order of temporary injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from putting up any construction on the suit schedule property. The Lower Appellate Court by its order dated 6.12.2010 dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed this writ petition.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, the Trial Court had not granted any order of temporary injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. The Trial Court after considering the materials on record, had dismissed the suit. In the appeal, the Plaintiff filed an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from putting up any construction on the said land, The photographs have been produced by the 2nd Respondent before the Lower Appellate Court in support of his contention that the land is in the possession of the Housing Board and the construction work is going on in the suit schedule property. On consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, the Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the application. The Lower Appellate Court has observed that if the Plaintiff succeeds in the suit, then the order of demolition of the building can be passed. Having perused the entire material on record, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.