MOHAMMED UMAR Vs. PATTAN PANCHAYAT, HALIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the impugned order dated 10.03.2014 passed by Senior Civil Judge in M.A. 13/2013 whereunder the order passed by trial court in O.S. 125/2013 on 19.10.2013 dismissing I.A. 2 filed by plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. came to be confirmed.

(2.) PETITIONER was running a Tea shop in the commercial building belonging to the respondent -Pattan Panchayat office. On account of the said building having become old and being in a dilapidated condition and respondent -panchayat having resolved to construct a new complex, possession of the shop in occupation of petitioner was taken over and on demolition of old structure a new complex came to be constructed and a resolution also came to be passed by Panchayat to give preference to the old occupants subject to certain conditions as stipulated therein.

(3.) IT is the contention of Sri S.R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for petitioner -plaintiff that defendant had issued a letter dated 02.08.2013 indicating thereunder that preference in allotment of shops will be given to the prior occupiers and pursuant to the same amount indicated by respondent -panchayat office came to be deposited by petitioner and possession of shop No. 1 also came to be delivered. Hence, it is contended respondent them selves having admitted that plaintiff is in settled possession of shop No. 1 he cannot be dispossessed without due process of law during pendency of suit inasmuch as any decree that may be obtained by plaintiff will only be a paper decree and purpose of seeking order of injunction would be defeated. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition.