UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHIVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 28. 10. 2005 on LA. Nos. I, IV and V in O. S. No. 1287/2005 on the file of the learned Principal II Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bangalore Rural District, bangalore and also the order dated 9. 8. 2007 in M. A. No. 24/2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore rural District, Bangalore vide Annexures -A and B respectively, has presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) THE plaintiff/petitioner herein has filed a suit for permanent injunction and for other incidental reliefs. Along with the plaint, he also filed I. A. No. I seeking temporary injunction in O. S. No. 1287/2005 on the file of the learned Principal II Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bangalore rural District, Bangalore. Respondents 1 to 5 have filed an application under Order 39, Rule 4 of CPC to vacate the ex-parte order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner and I. A. V was also filed by the 6th respondent under Order 39, Rule 4 of CPC to vacate the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner. All the three applications filed by the petitioner and the respondents have come up for consideration before the Trial Court on 28. 10. 2005. The Trial Court, after considering the grounds urged by the petitioner and the respondents in their affidavits along with the accompanying applications and after hearing the respective counsel for the parties, has framed necessary points for consideration in para 10 of the order and after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material on the file, by assigning reasons in para 15 of the order, has rejected I. A. I filed by the petitioner and allowed I. As. IV and V filed by the respondents and vacated the temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner. However, both the parties were directed not to alter or improve the pathway demarcated in the survey sketch produced by the respondents in the interest of Grass farm which is existing on either side of the said pathway till the disposal of the suit. Questioning the correctness of the order passed on I. As. I, IV and V in O. S. No. 1287/2005 dated 28. 10. 2005, the petitioner filed miscellaneous Appeal No. 24/2006 on the file of the learned I Additional civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the learned Civil Judge on 9. 8. 2007. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both the sides and after considering the material available on record, has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the orders impugned passed by both the Courts below as referred above, the petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Y. D. Harsha.