ENTTEIHKHiCOURT(fl?KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD DATED THIS THE gne DAY 01:' SEPTEMBER, 2009, 3 BEFORE THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsT1cE AJIT .:.GU1§;._J}x:,,. V E" i WRIT PETITION No.3o318/:2oo8'(GM;«.cPe)H' E" BETWEEN: N. Manzoor Ahmed, S/0 late N.H.Peeran Sab, , Aged about 48 years, ' 4_ ._ . , V R] o Mruthunjayanagar, Ho"spet',,_ Bellary Qistrict. " . v «ESETITIONER AND: Sri. Mukthar. Aherrid ». _ S / 0 Basheer Aherrld Khazi Aged about 32 y'ear_s;. _ ' Partneriiof. M / s IWK. Marketing '~ .12] ofiswimming Pool 'Complex, Beside I.T.§ P_ai*l<;, Hosur, opp'.'Vs1as,'I«:¢uges,. I-Iubli, "'Dist;__ Dhat5w;;1d;.i'V'v»"" (By Sri. Deshpande, Adv.) . RESPONDENT
it Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
_ iofith-==x Constitution of India praying to call for the relevant
‘ records which ultimately ersulted in passing of the
_i_m7pugned order dated 7/7/08 passed on i.a.no.vi in
o.s.no.12/O8 on the file of the civil judge, sr.dn kudiigi vide
Anne-xure~A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for orders, this day, the
Court made the following:
0 R D E R
The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent
is the plaintiff. The suit filed is one for bare
2. The case made out in the peti;tionAAii–so:”‘ ~
father of the petitioner was grantedmining”licerice_}for_ if
conducting mining activity in
land measuring 39.19 ‘RVar2ge:,:V”‘Sandur ” V
ra1uk,piBe1’laey_i,I:)i1e~.h~i<:~,f:;j_' Father of the petitioner died
leavingfninrh three brothers. The case of
the :.petpitione2:g is' that? he is recognized as a legal
l"rep'i*e.sentati~V_e on death of his mother. Suffice it to
the-1" petitionerwdefendant enters into an
agfeern.__ent.«–""with the respondent for certain mining
oc,toi_.Viti'e-si. We are really not concerned with whether
"'.',~'_.f.1"<.-laid' act is counter placed or not. Suffice it to say that
"the respondent has filed a suit for bare injunction.
Respondent also maintained an application for ad-
interim injunction. Initially it was granted but however,
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that it has been set aside in appeal. Du.e:t¢g_
pendency of the suit, an application
petitioner under Order XIV Rule!
Procedure requesting the _C.o.urtii"'tdl"*frame'l'-
additional issues. One is to plaintiiferespondent
proving that they _andli the other
relating to payment of fee. llveiarriied trial Judge
has reiectcdiipitjhe "ap'plication,": as against which, the
defendant'–petitioIiierV this Court.
up H ' Chiidanandayya learned counsel
the petitioner–defendant submits that a
spe_cificv.con–telntion is taken in the written statement
W.regardi.nig payment of Court fee. Hence, the trial Court
to have framed an issue regarding payment of
__Ci)urt fee and tried it as preliminary issue accordingly. W
i?
zg
He further submits that another additional issue
regarding possession ought to have been framed.
4. The learned counsel for respondent–pla_intiff
supports the impugned order.
5. I have perused the impugned K V' written statement.
6. It is not doubt triueiithat ‘petitioner has
taken th’eiiC’ourt fee has to be paid
on the:’r_1ease /–crores but what is
significantis *the’v._ for bare injunction and the
“‘«._Ap1ainitiff:responde1it—–has valued the suit under Section
:(‘<;}. ..p:K'arnataka Court Fees and suit Vaiuation
Act? Indeed. it is to be noticed that it is a suit for bare
"-.,injuncti_o1n and not coupled with any declaration. Since
""ii._s*.vJ.it:i,tself is for bare injunction, the question of framing
__a5dditiona1 issue regarding payment of Court fee does
not arise at all.
In fact the learned trial Judge has answered the
same. Insofar as the possession is concerned,p;..”‘~the
iearned trial Judge has found that issue
cover the proposed additions} issue.
Having perused the impugnediiiorder, -ii
View that the question of interfering dwith the,
order does not arise.
4 3
ma: gm;
Hver1’ee,
Eseee