GURUPRASAD Vs. NARAYANASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

(2.) On a careful perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the Trial Court has specifically mentioned that the Tahsildar has submitted a report to the effect that, there was an encroachment of 22 guntas in Sy. No. 144/7 and 14 guntas in Sy. No. 145 of Kannamangala Village, Bidarahalli, Bangalore East Taluk.

(3.) On a careful perusal of the orders, it is mentioned that the Court has examined the documents produced before the Court and as well as the Tahsildar's report and found that there is a prima facie material to take cognizance and for issuance of summons. Though the learned Counsel tried to convince this Court that, the documents produced by the Tahsildar are not correct and the initiation of the proceedings itself is bad in law, but when the Trial Court has considered the materials on record tentatively and taken cognizance and issued process after following the procedure as contemplated, it may not be proper and wise for this Court to quash such proceedings.