BASAVANNAPPA SHIVAPPA HAVERI Vs. VIRUPAXAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the case papers including the impugned order made by the trial Court.

(2.) THE impugned order made by the trial Court reads as under: Sri SSP files Advancement application to take the case on board with a memo for the reasons stated therein. Hence, submitted for:orders Respondent No. 8 present. Sri SSP Advocate filed memo stating that Respondent No. 8 is taking crop in the property illegally and suitable orders be passed to protect crop until disposal of I.A. 11. Sri BPP, objections to said memo. Heard both sides. However until order on I.A. No. 11, Respondent No. 8 is directed not to remove crop in the disputed properties. Call on 28.11.2002

(3.) IN the result, therefore, this Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed. The impugned order made by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for passing appropriate and considered order in accordance with law. Till then, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. It is however made clear that it is also open to the Court below to consider the application filed under Order 26, Rule 10 (c) of Code of Civil Procedure instead of passing such interim order on the memo. Keeping open the said option to the trial Court and directing the parties to maintain status quo, the Revision Petition stands allowed with the above observations and directions.