THIMAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri.Pradeep Kumar., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Bhimashankar., for the petitioners has appeared in person.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking and status before the Trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts are these: The Plaintiffs filed a suit for Mandatory Injunction seeking a direction to construct a CTC Bridge on the top of the canal in the land belonging to defendants 7 to 10 as a cartway that existed since time immemorial. Defendants 1 to 5 did not file a written statement and defendant No.6 was placed ex-parte. Defendants 7 to 10 appeared through their counsel and filed a Written Statement contending that the suit is filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. Hence, permission under Sec. 91 of the CPC is not obtained and the relief sought by the plaintiff is nothing but modifying the technical plan and policy decision. Therefore, they contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Among other grounds, they sought for dismissal of the suit. As things stood thus, the plaintiffs filed applications in I.A.No.III under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC with a prayer to grant ad-interim mandatory injunction order against defendants not to carry any of the canal work by maintaining status-quo, I.A.No.IV under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC with a prayer to pass the ad-interim order against defendants 1 to 5 to not to release the tender amount in favor of defendant No.6 and I.A.No.VI Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC with a prayer to grant ad-interim mandatory injunction order by giving necessary directions to defendants 1 to 6 to construct temporary bridge (cart tracking cross) immediately as per the Sagamkunta Village map in Sy.Nos.61/1, 61/5, and 73/2 till disposal of the suit and complete the temporary bridge construction work within a week. Defendants 7 to 10 contested the applications and filed a memo to treat their written statements as objections to the applications. The Trial Court vide order dtd. 12/12/2019 dismissed the applications. As against the order passed on I.A.No.VI, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in Miscellaneous Appeal No.02/2020 before the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Raichur. The Appellate Court vide order dtd. 27/8/2020 dismissed the appeal. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.