RATHNAMMA Vs. CHOWDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.356/2022 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote [for short, 'the civil Court']. The petitioners are aggrieved by the civil Court issuing just emergent notice on their application [I.A. No.1] under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, 'the CPC'] without granting ex-parte order of injunction has sought for. The petitioners' essential grievance in this petition is premised in the contention that the civil Court has issued emergent notice without considering the question of delay defeating the very application for temporary injunction.

(2.) Sri. G A Srikante Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioners, canvasses that the petitioners own gramathana/revenue sites as described in the plaint schedule; that the respondents cannot have any interest in these properties and not even the right of access to these properties which are used for residential purposes; that there is alternative access even according to the village map, Sri. G A Srikante Gowda in this regard, apart from the village map, relies upon Annexure-C [a rough sketch] to show that the respondents have alternative access, and he emphasizes that the petitioners' cause for grant of immediate relief is because there is an attempt by the respondents to construct a road running through the subject properties.

(3.) Sri. Ramachandra H, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the respondents, as also the other villagers, can undeniably access the burial ground in the village only through the subject properties. The learned counsel to support this case, relies upon certain photographs and assertions made in the application for modification of this Court's order and for appointment of a Court Commissioner.