The mere pendency of a writ appeal cannot be a reason to invoke the power under Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act.

N.K. Patil, J.--This revision is directed against the order dated 28.12.2001 passed on IA 12 in O.S. 213 of 1979 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Anekal.

2. Brief facts of the case are narrated as follows:

The husband of the 1st Petitioner late Sri Bakki Reddy filed a suit in O.S. No. 454 of 1976 for grant of permanent injunction against the Respondent. It was renumbered as O.S. No. 213 of 1979 after transfer of the suit to the Court of Munsiff, Anekal. The suit has been dismissed on 28.11.2001 as not maintainable on the interim application filed by the Defendant-Respondent under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short the Act).

3. The Respondent who is the brother's son of late Bakki Reddy claimed to be the tenant of the suit lands filed an application in Form No. 7 under the Act. It was registered in LRF No. 2421 of 1975-76 before the Land Tribunal, Anekal. After several rounds of litigation, an order dated 7.12.1988 came to be passed by the Tribunal rejecting the tenancy claim of the Respondent over the suit lands. The said order was challenged in earlier Writ Petition 28718 of 1991 and the writ petition came to be dismissed on 12.3.1999 by this Court. Against the said order, the Respondent filed Writ Appeal 5495 of 1999 before this Court which is pending. Be that as it may, the trial Court has dismissed the suit as sought for by the Respondent holding that the question of tenancy between the parties is pending in writ appeal and hence the suit is not maintainable.

4. The principal submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, is that the impugned order passed by the trial Court on IA-12 is contrary to the provisions of the Act and hence the same is liable to be rejected. The learned Counsel vehemently submitted, that the reasoning assigned by the trial Court in dismissing the suit is erroneous because the trial Court without going into the merit of the case that too, as the suit was filed as early as in the year 1976 at this distance of time there is no justification for the trial Court to dismiss the suit as not maintainable in view of the application filed by the Respondent. Therefore, the approach of the trial Court is perverse and not sustainable.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners to substantiate his submission placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the cases of Mallappa Nilappa Sankunatti Vs. Ramachandra Naru Chavan alias Sanadi reported in ILR 2000 Kar 1548 and Raviraja Shetty Vs. Bhoopala Shetty reported in ILR 2001 Kar 2836. In view of the law laid down by this Court in similar facts and circumstances, the ratio of the judgments referred to supra directly have bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, he prayed that on this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, inter alia, contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is strictly in accordance with law. The suit filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable on the ground that the tenancy matter has been seized by this Court in the writ appeal. In support of his submission he pointed out the definition of decree in Section 2(ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also placed reliance in the case of Major S.S. Khanna Vs. Brig. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 and justified the impugned order passed by the trial Court. However, he is not in a position to persuade the well settled law laid down by this Court which has bearing directly on the facts under Section 133 of the Act.

7. The question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law?

8. As rightly pointed out by the Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction and it is maintainable under the relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, the reasoning given by the