High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt G Mala vs Smt V Anasuya Devi on 13 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt G Mala vs Smt V Anasuya Devi on 13 October, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 1391 DAY OF OCTOBER 2009
BEFORE I E

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT    T-

WRIT PETITION NO.1251(3;/A2009{CM%VPQiiCvé}..  E '

BETWEEN :

Smt.G.Ma1a,

W/o.Late Sri.K.Ramesh,
Aged about 30 years,  .
No.1, Venkatswamy Layout,-'_ V I   
Opp.BaI3,aswadi Railway S'tatioi1,= _ E  ._ " » ., 
Lingarajapura ExtensiQn.,,'_  ' "
Bangalore ~-- 56.9084. 

E'   . .PI-ETITIONER

(Sy sg¥I;'::§I_--IygI£:aIEy Adv.)
AND :'  E  

I. ,53fi1t.V.Afiasufy?a' Devi.
-Aged--ab0ut 63 'years,

 ' V. / Q'. lateyflri. Kanthraj

 T'TEsrI.K.iiIIma};)aIhy.

A  48 years.
S,' 9."! ate Sri.KaI1thraj,

  ' C'3.1'i.Ié.N agaraju.

 * .._A_geC1 about 52 years,
 S/o.Late Ramaswamy

E All are residing at No.1,
Venkatswamy Layout,
Opp.Ba}:1aswadi Railway



Station, Lingarajapura
Extension, Bangalore--56O 084

4. Sub--Inspector of Police,

Banaswadi Police Station,  .   5 ,_ 
HBR Layout, Bangalore. 1 
(By Sri.M.D.Raghunath, Advrfor R23]  i r it  

Sri.N.Krishnarnurthy, Adv, ,forji     it   g 
Sri.Narendra Prasad,  for R4} " « 2 "  

This writ petition is filedpnder 'Ar_tic'1esVf226 and
227 of the Constitution of I.ndiao_:'wit'h a prayer='to quash
the endorsement dated Q11.04.;20OQfat'Annexure 'G' and
direct the respondent No'.4i'-to:"regi'stfer' an appropriate

FIR against theV.respc;nderits =in:_ter’1nS” or the complaint
given by the:.vpetitioner interms [ofthfe complaint given
by the petitionerjlin termed of __thfe. cornpiaint given by the
petitioner at AnneXt1_res«rli’.”D;’ it

This’ -. coming on for preliminary
hearing in’ B’ ._Cl1″rr’7.C!€.L};l)’,’~._p_ifl’i.1’E’. day, the Court made the
followingzfliil _ l ‘ ” V.

‘ g iiggpetitioner had filed a suit in

O..S’;Nol9ii’6/§}”i2005 against respondents I to 3 for

permanent injunction restraining them from interfering

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the shop

premises. On contest, the said suit was decreed as

against which respondents 1 to 3 have filed an appeal in

/,

– 3 –

R.F.A.No.444/2009 and the said appeal is still pending.

In the meantime, the petitioner alleges that resporilktnts

1 to 3 are trying to interfere with her

Hence, she lodged a complaint with the -.

police at Banaswadi Police Sta,tiori,.,c;opy.:

produced at Annexure ‘G?’ indicating thatl’l’tii;e_isulojectllv

matter of the present proceedings is seiiedlziy this Court
on the Civil side. A _ V pp p

2. Indeed if there v:gio1’at.ilo’n’ the judgment

and decree it is always open

for the.._ApetitioVnVerj execution. Hence, following

order is passed: l . ‘

(a) ‘Arine)i1:£re.f.G’ does not warrant interference.

are bound by the judgment and decree

in the civil proceedings.

~{c)”;Reserving liberty to the petitioner to sue out

execution, petition stands disposed of

accordingly.

3. M1-.N.B.Vishwanath, learned Addifgional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent

permitted to file memo of appearance

s1=s é