GUNDU RANU KALAKUNDRI Vs. MAHESHCHANDRA KESHAV KODAKANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.127/2017, which is pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Dandeli. The said suit has been filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. Along with the plaint, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was filed seeking an order of temporary injunction against the defendant. By order dated 23.06.2017, the trial Court granted the said order by rejecting the application filed by defendant seeking vacating of the ex parte order of temporary injunction. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred Misc.Appeal No.17/2017 before the first appellate Court (Court of Senior Civil Judge, Haliyal). By the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2017, the appeal filed by the defendant has been allowed. Consequently, order passed by the trial Court dated 23.06.2017 has been set aside and the application filed by defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC has also been allowed and the ex parte order of temporary injunction granted on 16.05.2017 has been recalled. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent-caveator and perused the material on record.

(3.) During the course of submission, it has been brought to my notice that in respect of the suit schedule land plaintiff/petitioner herein had claimed tenancy rights and had filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal. The same was granted. Being aggrieved, the defendant had preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the defendant had preferred LRRP before this Court, which was allowed by setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 12.08.1988 and the appellate authority dated 14.03.1989. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff had preferred a Special Leave Petition which was converted into a Civil Appeal (Civil Appeal No.3112/2000) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in favour of defendant and rejected Form No.7 filed by petitioner herein. When the matter stood thus, petitioner herein filed the suit contending that the defendant was interfering with his possession and as stated above sought for an order of temporary injunction which was granted by the trial Court. But the defendant preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court and taking note of the aforesaid facts, has rightly held that the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit is not entitled to any order of temporary injunction as he was not a tenant of the suit schedule land and that the lawful possession of the suit schedule land vested with the defendant. I find no infirmity in the judgment of the first appellate Court. There is no merit in the writ petition, writ petition is hence dismissed.