Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 28.10.2005
passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First Appeal
NO.8349/2005 whereby and whereunder the order of injunction dated 30.8.2005
passed by the XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hill Unit, Bangalore in
O.S.No.16152/2005, was set aside.
In view of the order proposed to be passed by us, it is not necessary to
notice the fact of the matter in great detail.
Suffice it to say that one J.K. Narayana Swamy was the owner of the
property. Whereas the plaintiff-appellant claims her right, title and interest in the
said property as the widow of said Shri J.K.Narayana Swarmy; the defendants-
respondents claim themselves to be the assignees in respect
of the said property from one N. Jayalakshmi, said to be the adopted daughter of J.K.
Narayana in whose favour a Will was executed by him.
A suit was filed in the year 2005. Defendants-respondents filed written
statements in the said suit on or about 15.4.2005. According to them by that time
major portion of the construction was completed. However, the learned trial Judge
granted an injunction on 30.8.2005 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant restraining the
defendants-respondents from encroaching or interfering or putting up any
construction in any portion of IA-I schedule property in any manner pending disposal
of the suit.
However, a miscellaneous first appeal was filed there against and an order
of stay of the operation of the said order was passed by the High Court.
According to the defendants-respondents they raised further constructions
pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof. The impugned order has been passed
setting aside the order of the trial Court.
This Court by an order dated 16.12.2005 directed the parties to maintain
Status-quo. Inter-alia, on the premise that the defendants-respondents have violated
the said order, a contempt petition has also been filed.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in
view of the fact that the said interim
order of Status-quo has been continuing for a longtime, interest of justice would
be subserved if the same
is directed to continue with a further direction to the learned trial Judge to hear out
the suit itself and dispose it of as early as possible and preferably within a period of
six months from the date of communication of this order.
So far as application for initiating proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule
2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for alleged violation of the said order of status-quo
dated 16.12.2005 is concerned, we direct that the said question may be considered by
the learned trial Judge along with the hearing of the suit, so that the contention of the
respondents-defendants that they had completed almost the entire construction before
the order of status-quo was passed on 15.4.2005 as also the allegation of the appellant-
plaintiff that in fact the respondents-defendants have raised the construction after the
order of status-quo, can be considered by the learned trial Judge on the basis of the
materials which may be brought on record by the parties thereto.
It goes without saying that any consequential order, in the event, it is found
that the order of this Court has been violated, may be passed by the trial Court itself.
Records of the contempt proceeding may be transmitted to the learned
trial Judge with the counter affidavit.
With the aforementioned directions and observations, the appeal and the
contempt petitions are disposed of.
[S.B. SINHA]
New Delhi, November 20, 2008.