High Court Karnataka High Court

Shabad Sahityik Samstha vs Shabd Sahityik Samstha on 4 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shabad Sahityik Samstha vs Shabd Sahityik Samstha on 4 June, 2009
Author: H.G.Ramesh
M,F.AfN0.9861;2006
.~ 1 ,

IN THE HIGH. COURT OF KARHATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED TI-H3 THE 473 DAY OF JUICE 2039

BEFORE

THE Howm..E nm..ms*r1cE H.G.RAm:sI-=:< _ ' ,;  "  H

M.F.A. N0.9861[2Q_Q§'**«.A 
BETWEEK:  J A. 

smaan SAHITYIK SSKMSTI-{A

ms: ASSOCIA'I'£ON REGESTERED

UNDER KARN'A'1'AKA socm-':':Es _ 

REG1S'I'RA'I'iON am', HAVING {TS Rags.  

OFFICE AT NCi).1B, SARAKIKERE, 24TH,  

cam PHASE, J P NAGAR,B£1.NG§LLOF§E?8 » '  _ ~ _

REP. BY ms PRESIDENT SR1 GYANCHAED   .}£PPE'.LL.AN"1"'

(BY SR1 PI}'I"1'I(}Ei§}€'i%f;iEr1¥:1S}ié_{_,ADE)   . «V

SHABD sAH1*ry:'K%%sAMS'1' ?m_  
AN ASSOCIA'I'1C-N REGISTEREQ
UNDER i<Z-.*'--'~_RI\IA'1'£fi€7.:°L SQ€',lE"§'IES

 §§}fi'GISTRATl0N ACT," r.».m'v:N:3 ITS
 was vcxmscg mf NO.12i$}"B
-5*1'1;1 m.1r-J, 565% 03033, IV BLOCK

RA.)A«.iIIiIAGAR"E3ANGALORE 10
125:9, 13$ Ifrsv §'F%E.€';1I3'I§'N'I'

  sMT'sA'RoJAv¥g.s:  RESPONDENT

g EB’? sé; ff? Hsmsa, ADV.)

” “1′?HiS iéfII”A FILED U/ORDER 43 RULE-1(r3 rejw SE6. :5:

‘*1’.S.£§I£Z),1663/2006 0;»: THE .m.E or? ‘1″‘IriE XXIV ADDL. cm’

}’;}7SE}’.Z;} JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (C€3H.NO.6), ALLOWING IA
_ ‘Nix: FILED UfORI_’)ER 39 RULES 1 35 2 OF CPC1 132:3}? T1.

TEES MFA COMING 0N FOR WNAL HEARENG, THIS IEAY,
TEE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

the suiéj. ‘V

M.F.A.NC).9861f2006

– 2 _

JUDG§EKT

This appeal by the defendant is .’

an interiocutory order dated 29.5.2-£365 . 1.;xf:é_f,

trial court -~ the Court of the XXIV Iiddifibfiai”€§i15,’._CiV£f1′.:A

Judge, Bangalore, in the
By the iinpugwd order,’ the
app1icat:ion–I.A.Nc:>. 1 filecf piaintifi’
under Order r ‘ 151 of the
CPC by defendant from
ad0pt:ing:?_ ._ ‘the piaixxtjfl namaiy

‘Shabd/Shéaghzfid’ til} the dispasai of

__TIu the lemned Counsel appearing for

the the impuglted order.

AA 00131186} on both sides submit ltjnat the

order sf injunction passad by the mal caurt

_ ” bean aperating mm the Last three year’s i.e. from

293* May 2006. ‘I’hey further submit thfit the evidencse

W

M.F’.A.NO.986lf20€)6
_ 3 BA

is recorded in part: in the suit Having regantl to
fact that the irztefim order has been om1’a¥:ing ”
last: three years anci the suit is almostoat the

deem it appropriate to dispose of71:h{:_’_’ 7-of

direction to the ma
expeditiously. Learned eide;.3.AAsL1Ei)1nit
that their clients woui<VT';:;.ot VA;-§1jdj_o11m1ments
and that they §vej;11_r.;1 fzgiiyf the tzriai
court for " iéji; suit. 'I'11eir
submission—»is on . pgecordirlgly, I make
the fofloveing' '

The t1'iVVé}-.e§fio1.11fii is to dispose of the suit in

~oo.s. LE'~I::v)'.'§'«;1..6E~E__'$5AV;';i'-,/§2{)(}€+"" «expeditiously and without being
.obseru'ations made in the course of

the i3I1§vilgI1(*3(iV'e:if}.'£'{i6T.

Ameag disposeé of. = Sd/*
.. Judge