A few facts need mention infra for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short question.
The plaintiff is restrained from interfering in the 4 4 defendants possession of property bearing CTS No.1336A/1B1B/1A1A/1A1A/29 measuring 30x551650 sq.ft.
No order as to companyts.
The plaintiff respondent No.1 is hereby restrained from causing obstruction to the defendant No.2/appellant in making companystructing over the property as prayed in the application I.A.No.2 till the disposal of suit.
It is against this order of the High Court, defendant No.
2 appellant herein felt aggrieved by the dismissal of his application IA No.2 filed Misc.
Defendant No.
At the same time, the application filed by the plaintiff for injunction against the defendants with respect to property bearing CTS No.1336A/1B/1A/1/1A/1A measuring 30x40 and further 15x30 situated at Indi is allowed.
2 has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
1 and the appellant defendant No.
1 felt aggrieved and filed W.P. No.203932/2015 in the High Court of 3 3 Karnataka, Kalaburagi and questioned its legality and companyrectness.
The defendants are restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs property bearing CTS No.1336A/1B/1A/1/1A/1A measuring 30x40 and further 15x30 situated at Indi.
7/2014 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge JMFC, Indi.
The order dated 16.7.2015 passed by the appellate Court, i.e., the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.07 of 2014 granting injunction to the defendants with respect to property bearing CTS No.1336A/1B1B/1A1A/1A1A/29 measuring 30x551650 sq.
situated at Indi is companyfirmed.
The orders passed by the Trial Court, Civil Judge JMFC, Indi on I.A.No.2 filed by defendant No.2/appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S. No.445/2013 dated 10.3.2014 is hereby set aside.
1 herein as well as defendant No.
The appellant is defendant No.
By impugned order, the Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the writ petition filed by the plaintiff respondent No.
The suit is for a declaration and injunction in relation to the suit land as detailed in the plaint.
2 2 The Trial Court by order 10.03.2014 dismissed both the applications.
2Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur defendant No.
Appeal No.
By order dated 16.07.2015 Annexure P9 , the appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted injunction which reads as under The appeal filed by the defendant No.2/appellant is allowed.
Respondent No.
In this suit, the plaintiff respondent No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
2 is defendant No.
2 appellant herein both filed an application for grant of injunction against each other under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being IA No.1 and IA No.2 respectively.
1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.
The High Court companyfirmed the injunction granted to defendant No.
The plaintiff respondent No.
1 in O.S. No.445/2013 before the Court of Civil Judge, Indi at Indi.
situated at Indi.
1 has filed a civil suit against respondent No.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.02.25 and order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the High Court 163046 IST Reason of Karnataka at Kalaburagi in Writ Petition No.203932 1 1 of 2015 whereby the High Court partly allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein.
2, respondent No.
