S Sruesh Rao Sathe vs The Karnataka Kshatriya Maratha … on 31 March, 2009

M3"

Maratha Parishath, Bangalore,
MARATHA BHAVAN,

Ne-.26/:'§, Mi11erTa3:1k Band Roaci,
Vasanthnagar, Ba11ga1ore--56(} 052.

3. H.V. Piemaji Ra-3 Fawar,   

General Secretary, 1

Tha Karnataka Kshaitziya

Maratha Parishath, Bangalore,
MARMHA BHAVAN, " _ 
No.26/A, Miller Tank Bliliid R<*5a:i; 
Vasanthnagar, Bangalore-560 _()52._ K

4. S. Gururaj Jadhav,

Hon. Treasurer, .. 

The Kamataka Kshanigrav. _  V «A  V

Maratha Parisitath, Bé;ngalc§re,-.'V  ' "

MARATHABI{AV1}{N,_V _   4_  " '

No.26/A, Tazxik B~uz.1d"~~Rond;._' 

Vasanthnagalfi.  " '   ._  

Bangalorsfiéijfi      RESPQNDENTS
:  ' « ~ (COMMON)

(By Sri Ravivaima Kuziiar;»TS1 fig_ Ct;12nse1 for
Sri Krishna'Mu:1:hy. v,'A:1v."f;~._r" 51712»: 5:. 2
Qespandants 3..& 4 air: <3.(31€§*1:r:§1"vic1e court
Oxder 13.03.2009), a  " '

  xvii: '$0.233/2009 is filed under Articzlas 226 8:»
227 of the Goiistittition of India praying ts set aside the orcler

'  mdated '{}__1.01.:2.{}G'§i'pass.e:<;i on LA. Null in. 0.8. No.'?624] 2(}{)8 cm

the file" of"-. th':;I City Civil Judge, Ballg-'alorfi, cc;~;--13, Vida

 «Aixnexllrfiéfig and allow LA. No.11 as prayed.

._  ,§}fi;*s«ce1lane0us F-'irst Appeal 1810.220] 2009 is filed under
C}1'dZ€.%r"-43 R1136 1{Ij C?C against 13:16 Order dated 01.01.2009

 .._15asse%é on I,A.Ne.I11 in O.S.N-3.7624/2008 on the file of the V
 . _ ..At:id--1.' City Civil ané Sessions Judge, Bangaiore, rcjecting the LA.
  hfilsd zmdtzr Oxtier 39 Rules 1 65 2 CPS for tempcpraxy i11j1}.I1{§IiOIL

Thfi Writ Petition and ma Miscellaneous First Appeal
coming on far pronouncement of ortiar this fiay, the Caurt made:

this f0l1oWin.g;--

 



.. 3 -
referred to and relied upon by the '¥'ria,1 Court, he eentends that
as the petitioners are already removed from the membership, by

an intezim order they eammt be reinstated.

7. Having heard the learne-::i counsel for the  

careful perusal of the materials on reee"1':%.'1--,. it   the-.'

Court below had taken note of the  testtfeeiotzalt  ._

plaintiffs from the membershitggé   "':._:E5(ee't};tive " V

Committee anei aiso fiem, . the --»..meteb§r%hip} of the
Parishath on 08.11.2093' t'e.a?§"a;;<,+1:--t1 u'£:§r§;:fuz:¢:1;1icatea to the
plainfifis by the  defefitiefif  letter dated
12.1 1.2088.  Vt  Pazishath dateei
03.11.20eeV and 2 and
the CO]§)iCS:':_'(}f  -2133? eight members who are
rzeminated     Cemmittee in the place of

the expetleti me1:ttbere"ai"e else taken note of. In fact, it is seen.

    'mg 013 record that the newly nominated persone

hatve.V about the expulsiozl of the ptamtiffs

zx"v"fr0m   and the feet that they were nominated in

" theirAAp1aee..v,_§'t is in this baekgreuxzd that the Court below has

 esj-Ve;.e"t0 tee conclusion that the piaintzlifs cannot be ozvdered to

  _§C§1'1Sta'£€d as members of the Parishath because as on the

   of filing of the suit the plaintiffs were met the members of

'g/.

 



H11-

10. For the neasans stated above, bath the Writ PetitioV19_:'a.§}d

the Miscellanaous ffirst Appeal filed chaiienging  _

passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 3 bfitillg devoid of }3ii:Eitrit'$5~v«Z';1T;t_t':"(1ViV§'$ttt3:'.:3St':'_tix;"  

However, having {iue regard to the fa€f;_ths1:t..t«iA1E  

plaintifis from the membership Vo'f.4_the   

Central Executive Committee on   against
than does have a serious  rtgfiiltfifion and
standing in the society and   fact that their
intemst are not ;pr§t:«4£f;:;?:teé:=A__ by ' Ofler clue to the
factors  itappropriatc to» direct
the Court Zbeibwjttg  to dispose of the $3332:
within a pt=;it'iQti.._Of  the date of mccigat of a copy
cf thfi ureter. 

 .....  

Iudge

“arms