BHIMAPPA TIMMAPPA KIVIDI Vs. GIREPPA LAXMAPPA KIVADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order made by the learned Munsiff at Mudhol, in Misc. Application No. 7 of 1967 on 17-6 1968.

(2.) This application came to be presented by the plaintiff in C. S. No. 31 of 1965. This suit, it may be mentioned, was disposed of with a direction that the plaint be returned on account of want of pecuniary jurisdiction in that Court to entertain it. it would appear that subsequent to such return the suit was represented or re-filed in the Court of the Civil Judge at Bagalkot. The said suit is Spl. C. S. No. 22/67. While the suit was pending in the Court of the Munsiff at Mudhol, an order of temporary injunction was made, against which an appeal was preferred. In the course of the hearing of that appeal the parties appear to have come to terms and agreed for the appointment of a receiver to be nominated by the trial Court. It was further agreed that out of the realisation, by way of rent or otherwise, from the suit lands, the plaintiff was to take 1/3rd and the balance 2/3rds to be drawn by the defendants. There was an order in terms of the above agreement. After the suit was remanded to the Court of the Munsif, a receiver was nominated and he took possession of the properties. It is stated that about Rs. 3,700/- was deposited as proceeds realised by the receiver from the suit properties. It is not in dispute that the defendants had drawn 2/3rds of the said money after furnishing the security.

(3.) Sri H. F. M. Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however submits that his client has not withdrawn the money in terms of the above agreement. In so far as the next year or years in question are concerned, one of the parties approached the learned Civil Judge before whom the refiled suit was pending. the learned Civil Judge disposed of the application virtually directing the parties to approach the Court which appointed the receiver. It was thus that the defendants were compelled to approach the Court of the Munsiff at Mudhol, although there was no suit as such pending before it. It may be relevant to mention that even before approaching the learned Civil Judge for the relief, the Court of the learned Munsiff at Mudhol had been moved for an appropriate Order. That Court had rejected the said application, being of the view that it was the Court of the Civil Judge which was the appropriate forum for making an order in that regard. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed Misc. Application No. 7 of 1967 and secured the order impugned herein.