LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-349

NEELAVVA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Decided On January 30, 2020
NEELAVVA Appellant
V/S
State of Karnataka and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/plaintiff in OS No.110/2007 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 31.10.2017 on IA No.18 by which the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is rejected.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit was initially filed for bare injunction restraining the defendants from forming the road by encroaching the suit property. Subsequently in July 2014, during the pendency of the suit, road was formed. At that time, on 9.7.2014, the plaintiff filed an application (IA No.15) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC wherein the status quo order was passed. Subsequently, as the defendants violated the order of status quo, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, which is pending. Meanwhile, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application IA No.18 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to bring on the developments that had taken place subsequent to filing of the suit and additional prayer seeking mandatory injunction to remove the road formed in the suit land. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the plaintiff had stated that as the defendants 1 and 2 formed the road during the pendency of the suit, it had become necessary for the plaintiff to bring on the developments which had taken place subsequent to filing of the suit and also seeking mandatory injunction which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objections contending that the application (IA No.18) filed belatedly that too when the matter stood at the stage of arguments. It is further stated that the plaintiff/petitioner was aware of the fact of forming the road in the year 2014 itself.