G.S.Naregal Vs. Shri Guroraja Sansakrit Vidya Peeth Dharwar & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 608 of 1974.
Petitioner: G.S.Naregal
Respondent: Shri Guroraja Sansakrit Vidya Peeth Dharwar & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 608 of 1974.
Judges: G.L.OZA & M.H.KANIA,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 10, 1987
Head Note:
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
Facts required to be investigated – High Court was right in directing the appellant to approach the competent court – Status quo as to possession to continue for three months to enable the appellant to approach the competent court for an interlocutory order.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we feel that the High Court was right in rejecting the Writ Petition and directing that as disputed questions of fact need to be investigated the appropriate course for the petitioner, the present appellant was to file a suit before a competent court where the questions of facts could be investigated upon and decision given. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with order passed by the High Court. This Court while granting leave granted an interlocutory order of status quo as to possession. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even if in accordance with the direction of the High Court he now files a suit, his possession be protected at least for the time being so that he may approach a competent civil court and after filing a suit may obtain appropriate interlocutory order to protect his possession. The prayer appears to be just. We, therefore, direct that the appeal is dismissed but the status quo as to possession shall continue for a period of three months from today within which the appellant if so advised may file a suit and approach the competent court for an interlocutory order and it will be open to the trial court to consider the application on merits and if satisfied pass appropriate orders. In the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Appeal dismissed.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we feel that the High Court was right in rejecting the Writ Petition and directing that as disputed questions of fact need to be investigated the appropriate course for the petitioner, the present appellant was to file a suit before a competent court where the questions of facts could be investigated upon and decision given. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with order passed by the High Court. This Court while granting leave granted an interlocutory order of status quo as to possession. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even if in accordance with the direction of the High Court he now files a suit, his possession be protected at least for the time being so that he may approach a competent civil court and after filing a suit may obtain appropriate interlocutory order to protect his possession. The prayer appears to be just. We, therefore, direct that the appeal is dismissed but the status quo as to possession shall continue for a period of three months from today within which the appellant if so advised may file a suit and approach the competent court for an interlocutory order and it will be open to the trial court to consider the application on merits and if satisfied pass appropriate orders. In the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Appeal dismissed.
