The facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal need to be stated in brief.
However, it is made clear that the appellant, who is defendant in O.S., and respondent who is plaintiff in the O.S., shall have their right to perform pooja on regular basis without staking claim with respect to disputed land, which shall be subject to out companye of this appeal.
The respondent, Uttaradi Mutt, filed O.S. No.193/1992 in the Court of Civil Judge, Koppal but in due companyrse the said suit was transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Gangavati and was registered as O.S. No.74/2010.
The judgment and decree passed in the suit was assailed before the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gangavati and eventually by virtue of the order passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition Civil No.
I.A. No.1/2016 was taken up by the learned Single Judge who referred to Order XXXIX Rule 3 A of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC , the authority in Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan others1, numbered the companytentions advanced by the learned companynsel for the parties, adverted to the litigations that had been taken recourse to by both sides, acquainted itself with the earlier order passed by the High Court and came to hold thus On a reading of the aforesaid order it becomes clear that the interim application filed by the appellant along with the appeal before this Court had to be companysidered independently and on its own merits.
In the meanwhile, registry to secure the LCR from both the companyrts below.
The first appellate Court allowed the appeal in part.
Secondly, it is also number known at this point of time as to whether, the order passed by this Court in M.F.A. number21690/2012 was brought to the numberice of this Court by the appellant or number before the interim order was passed.
When the matter stood thus, IA No.1 of 2015 was taken up by the High Court.
The suit preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed.
In the meantime, the appellant, being grieved by the order in the Regular Appeal, had preferred RSA No.100446/2015.
The executing companyrt passed certain orders on 10.12.2015.
Explanation An order by the Appellate Court for the stay of execution of the decree shall be effective from the date of the companymunication of such order to the companyrt of first instance, but an affidavit sworn by the appellant, based on his personal knowledge, stating that an order for the stay of execution of the decree has been made by the Appellate Court shall, pending the receipt from the Appellate Court of the order for the stay of execution or any order to the companytrary, be acted upon by the companyrt of first instance.
As is manifest, the respondent filed objections to I.A. No.1/2015 and also filed I.A. No.1/2016 for vacation of the interim order.
As is discernible from the narration of facts, the executing companyrt had directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gangavati to give police protection to the decree holder for possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property and preventing the judgment debtor from trespassing into the suit property violating the decree in RA No.123/2014.
The appellate Court restrained the present appellant from interfering with the plaintiff respondent Mutts possession and enjoyment of suit property subject to the right of the defendant Mutt to perform Adradhanas and Poojas of the Vrindavanas at Navavrindavanagatti.
The same should reach this companyrt on or before 16.01.2016.
Be it stated, the respondent had filed a caveat which was defective but it was allowed to represent through the companynsel when the IA No.1 of 2015 was argued.
Needless to say, numberequity shall be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of this order.
1 An appeal shall number operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the appellate companyrt may order, number shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree but the appellate companyrt may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree.
I am of the view that on this short ground alone order dated 16.12.2015 has to be vacated as there are procedural irregularities in the grant of the ad interim order.
The learned Single Judge, while companysidering the interlocutory application for injunction, passed the following order List this matter on 20.01.2016 for filing of objections to I.A.1/2015 and 2/15.
Order XLI Rule 5 reads as follows Stay by appellate companyrt.
After the appeal was disposed of, the respondent filed execution petition, E.P. No.122/2015 before the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gangavati.
Stay by companyrt which passed the decree.
As the order passed by the executing companyrt affected certain rights of the appellant, it filed IA No.1 of 2015 seeking temporary injunction against the respondent.
from entering upon the suit schedule property or interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the suit property and or interfering or disturbing with the performance of annual Aradhana of His Holiness Sri Padmanabha Teertharu, Sri Kavindra Teertharu and Sri Vageesha Teertharu.
Dipak Misra, J. The present appeal, by special leave, assails the order dated 11.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad in I.A. No.1 of 2016 in RSA No.100446 of 2015 whereby he has vacated the interim order dated 16.12.2015 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2015.
20346 of 2014, it stood transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwad and numbered as R.A. No.123/2014.
The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent for the relief s for perpetual injunction for restraining the defendant Mutt, its agents, servants, devotees, etc.,
