Aggrieved by the orders dated 29.10.2021 passed

by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, on I.A. Nos.1

to 4 in OS No.117/2021 and the orders dated 16.10.2021

passed in M.A. No.5019/2021 C/w. M.A. No.5020/2021 by

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting

at Jamakhandi, WP. No.105226/2021 is filed by the

defendants in the original suit and aggrieved by the order

passed on I.A. No.5 in OS No.117/2021 dated 16.12.2021

WP. No.105227/2021 is filed by defendants in the original

suit.

For sake of convenience the parties are referred

to as per their status before the trial Court.

3.

The plaintiff claiming to be owner of 8 acres 6

guntas of land in RS No.32/1 Kulhalli village, Rabkavi

Banhatti, filed OS No.117/2021 with the following prayers;

A)

“The Hon’ble Court may kindly be declare that,

plaintiff is the absolute owner of Rs.32/1

measuring

8A-06Gs

as

per

the

title

and

boundaries described in the sale deed dated

10.05.1974.

- 4 -

B)

The

Hon’ble

Court

may

further

grant

on

consequential

relief

of

permanent

injunction

against the defendants restraining them from

causing obstructions to the peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the suit land by plaintiff.

C)

Cost of the suit may be awarded from the

defendants.

D)

Leave to amend the plaint as and when required

may granted.

E)

Any other relief which is fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case may be granted.

4.

Along with the plaint he also filed I.A. No.1

under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain the

defendants from disturbing and causing disturbance to the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled

property till disposal of the suit.

He also filed I.A. No.2 under Order 94 (E) of CPC to

direct ADLR not to conduct the Haddu Bastu survey

against the suit property till disposal of the suit.

He also filed I.A. No.3 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2

of CPC to restrain the defendants from changing the

- 5 -

nature of the suit property and creating false evidence in

the area of 2 acres where sugar cane crops has been

planted by him and also to restrain the defendants from

cutting and damaging sugar cane crops grown in the suit

property till disposal of the suit.

5.

The defendants after service of summons have

filed their written statement and have opposed the

aforementioned I.A.s. filed by the plaintiff. In addition to

it the defendants filed I.A. No.4 under Order 39 Rule 1 and

2 of CPC to restrain the plaintiff from obstructing or

disturbing their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

written statement property in RS No.32/A/2 measuring 6

acres 37 guntas till disposal of the suit.

6.

The trial Court after hearing the parties has

disposed the aforementioned I.A. Nos.1 to 4 by passing

the following order;

“IA No.1 and 3 filed by the plaintiff under Order

39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC are hereby allowed and

accordingly the defendants are hereby restrained from

disturbing and causing disturbance to the peaceful

- 6 -

possession of the suit property by the plaintiff till

disposal of the suit and also the defendants are hereby

restrained from changing in the nature of the suit

property and also restrained from cutting and damaging

the sugar cane crops grown by the plaintiff in the suit

property till disposal of the suit.

IA.No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order 94(E) of

CPC is hereby allowed and accordingly the ADLR office is

hereby restrained from conducting the survey and to fix

Haddu Bastu over the suit property of the plaintiff till

disposal of the suit.

IA.No.4 filed by the defendants under Order 39

Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs”.

7.

Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed

M.A. No.5019/2021 challenging the order passed in I.A.

No.4

in

OS

No.117/2021

and

M.A.

No.5020/2021

challenging the orders passed in I.A. No.1 in OS

No.117/2021. Both the matters were clubbed and heard

together by the First Appellate Court and the said appeals

have been dismissed and the First Appellate Court has

confirmed