EJ THE me:-1 COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED ms um 15" DAY OF EINE, 2009
BEFORE
THE H()N'BI.E MR. JUSTICE mu. NA.G7mOEAN OAS: Q ': A E.
'WRIT PETITION Ne. 145_gl__200§€GI:"&!{_é:i3C)b" - . 2 TA
BETWEEN :
-------nnmnunqm-u-..
Sri.KDAYANANDA , ~ ~
S/O LATE K.ENCHAPPA(ALIAS) 'NARAPPA;
AGEDABOUT SSYEARS
OCC. PRIVATE ELECTRICAL sEEv1(:.E_ V
SUBRAMANYAPURA ROAD V.
KAD}1{ENAHALLL'?ADMANAB_}§A3§IAGARv .
BANGALORE. 1 = » '*...PEIm0NER
(By Sri. L s & A§SOi:mTEs, ADVS.)
AND:
um»-up-un-
_1 S3333. E DHANA1.AKSHl\fl
" '£ftD13.--.OJA€3'AI~JNA
, 'VAGFD moufr 5? YEARS
NO E392, 9??'~»MEm, m CROSS
'mN;IM.mE}LrmAGAR
¥EANGA1;OEE
Smt. G E_.AKS}£MIDEVI
E W30 vv RAJASPIEKARA
v VA':-iag ABOUT 47 YEARS
* -NO' 29, E mm ROM) K
3 KANAKA LAYOUT
BANAS E STAGE
BANGALORE-'I0. RESPONDENTS
u {By Sri. M S RAJENDRA PRASAD, Sr. COUNSEL)
«nouns
£1′: Omfxw
ax 1
THIS WRIT PETTIKON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
227 OF TEE CONSTITUFION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER T0
ASIDE. THE ORDER ANNEXURE A ET. 5.11.2008 PASSFJ3
().S.NO.1{}289f2(}05 BY THE LEARNED XXV ADDL. S L ‘
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
“rms WRIT PETTHON comma O_N….FOR
rmmma B GROU? ms BAY, THE ::C0UI{‘§’..V ?ASSED’~.§’1j£E’?
FOLLOWING;
J U 1) G MEN-.’Iz’
The petitioner filed 0.3, No.,-1$fi.89J2i}fi_5 zg2iifisE.. :11; first
respondent for a decree of her fiom
interfering with the petitic:;er’s ” ‘t of the plaint
schedule property? is having
her property. During the
pendeney of sold her property in favour of
second sale deed dated 16.01.2006. In View
fefmig ¢ée§=e1:;pmegg megeuaenex filed LA. No. 5 under Order 1 Rule
ésecond respondent as adcfitiunal second defendant
before’ T;ja:’@:oi;u. Under me impugned order the Trial Court
. 3 gfismissed LA.’ 2210. 5. Hence, this writ petition by the plaintifl”.
2. Heard arguments on boih the side and perused the entire writ
3. It is not in dispute that the suit is one for pennanent injunction.
There is no pleading against the proposed defendant. Zihough the second
3
respendem purchased the property fiem the first defendant on Li6.(}1,2{V1′{3_¥$’e._V
the same is not the subjeci matter in the suit. In the absence A4
and cause of action, me presence of second respondent 3
controversy between the petitioner and ‘1 _
nnnecessaxy. The impugned order passed by i31:e’W’ftial i1i: ‘ ‘
accordmme with law and I find no to” {fie
same. Accordingly, the writ petitieh ie