DARED

23.11.2021

PASSED

IN

MA.NO.7/2021 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AND CJM, BAGALKOTE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND

CONSEQUENTLY

ORDER

PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-E ON IA

NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BAGALKOT DATED

04.10.2021.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for

the following reliefs:

i)

Issue

a

Writ

of

Certiorari quashing

the

Impugned Order dated 23/11/2021 passed in

M.A.No.07/2021 by the learned Principal Senior

Civil Judge & CJM, Bagalkote vide Annexure-A

and consequently quash the impugned order

passed by the trial Court vide Annexure-E on

I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.4/2021 on the file of the

Learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Bagalkot

dated 04.10.2021.

ii)

Pass any order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit in the interests of justice and equity.

2.

O.S.No.4/2021 has been filed seeking for the

following reliefs:

“I humbly pray that the Hon’ble Court be

pleased to allow the application and grant

- 3 -

exparte ad-interim temporary injunction as

prayed for in I.A. in the interest of justice and

equity.”

3.

In the said suit an application for injunction

restraining the defendant from interfering with

the possession of the suit schedule property by

the defendant was filed which came to be

allowed. Challenging the same, M.A.No.7/2021

was filed which came to be rejected confirming

the order of injunction. It is aggrieved by the

same the petitioner - defendant is before this

Court.

4.

Sri.Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that the suit premises is

a Liquor Shop – Bar as regards which the CL-9

lisence issued is in the name of the petitioner

and it is the petitioner who is running the

business and as such, there could not have been

an injunction order which can have been passed

against the petitioner.

- 4 -

5.

Sri.S.B.Hebballi,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent however submits that the business

of the Liquor Shop – Bar is a family business.

There is an agreement between the parties

under which the defendant has agreed that the

plaintiff would be permitted to carry on the

business and as such, the defendant cannot

come in the way of plaintiff running the business

it in this background that the suit came to be

filed. Therefore, he submits that the trial Court

taking into consideration the settled aspects,

has rightly granted an order of injunction which

has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court,

he submits that the petition to be dismissed.

6.

Heard Sri.Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned counsel for

the petitioner, Sri.S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel

for the respondent.

7.

It is not in dispute that the suit property is a

Liquor Shop – Bar. It is also not in dispute that

- 5 -

the CL-9 lisence is standing in the name of the

defendant with plaintiff being the brother in law

of the defendant, the defendant’s husband

having been expired so also the father in law of

defendant having expired, the suit is one but

bare injunction and not for partition or the like

where those disputes could be decided.

8.

In a suit for injunction, restraining interference

with possession what is required to be seen is

the possession of the plaintiff.

9.

In the present case, as aforesaid, there is no

dispute that the premise is a Liquor Shop – Bar

and for running of the said Liquor Shop – Bar a

CL-9 lisence is required which stands in the

name of defendant, that is to say without the

lisence the Liquor Shop – Bar cannot be run.

10.

Admittedly, there is no lisence in the name of

the plaintiff, the plaintiff claims that there is an

- 6 -

agreement under which the defendant has

agreed to transfer the lisence. However, as

observed above the suit is one for bare

injunction and not for partition or specific

performance.

11.

In view of the aforesaid facts, when the

defendant is in possession of the premises and

the CL-9 lisence is in the name of the defendant.

Firstly the s