*******THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 26.09.2021 PASSED IN M.A.NO.25/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MADDUR AS PER ANNX- L. RESTORE THE ORDER DTD. 24.11.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 FILED IN O.S. 392/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MADDUR AS PER ANNX-H & ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2021 passed in M.A.No.25/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur (for short, 'the Appellate Court') and further prayer to continue the order dated 24.11.2020 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.392/2020 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur (for short 'the Trial Court').

2. Sri.Sanath Kumar K.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner- plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents as they were interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession. However, the defendants challenged the said order before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court, under the impugned order held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, however, failed to establish interference from the defendants. With the aforesaid finding, the appeal was allowed. It is further submitted that the mother-in-law of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from the father of the defendant No.1 in the year 1974 and after the death of the her mother-in-law, the name of the plaintiff has continued in the revenue records. The Appellate Court, without appreciating the title, revenue records, possession and interference by the other side, reversed the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Miss Sharvari S.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Chandrashekar H.B., learned counsel for the respondents supports the order of the Appellate Court and submits that the Appellate Court has taken note of the fact that a bald assertion is made with regard to the interference by the defendants. However, nothing is placed before the Court to establish the factum of interference by the defendants with regard to the possession of the plaintiff. It is submitted that now the Trial Court has posted the matter for recording the evidence and in view of the pendency of this petition, the proceedings before the Trial Court are not taken up. It is further submitted that this Court, vide an interim order, has ordered the parties to maintain status quo and the said status quo shall be continued till the disposal of the suit. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition by directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit at the earliest.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides.

5. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.392/2020 against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction. The assertion in the plaint is that the mother- in-law of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property vide registered sale deed dated 15.07.1974 from the father of the defendant No.1. Thereafter, the name of the mother-in-law of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records. It is averred that after the death of her mother- in-law, the plaintiff got the revenue records changed in her name. In the year 2020, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property which compelled her to file a suit for permanen