-1-
IN Tim HIGH comm: “;.g;V’:1z1′}’2c’JV;;g_»:,,-_a;_VC ‘ % V’
BETWEEN: V .
3; – .
W/0 Gov3:1mAwA_ .
AGE}? :;3oU’r,é’9″–3f:jaAIesf-.._ _
R0 ::;3′,=;,:*I }3_L0_£’§42″
--- zzéxrfi' _ _ _' APPELLANT
* (B? ‘sg;.%4..R..,A-ggvanmm, ADV.)
‘ 1, __ ‘c3_m~zm3:AH._. » 1
‘”?’s/c~.y_1~Io*:’ msrcam TO 3:’:-m APPELLANT
–.__'<:-,'{'a 'J. measmsmm
' fi–*1'.,G :"L4.-,; 7-:33 (moss,
6*.i:jz_a.F;~s.Am, mm I,
,_*J.<:: HAGAR,
.. B.A1~¥GAI.0RE–86
– .– ” . RESPONBENT
(BY $RI.GAN£3AIAH, ADV. 3
REA FILES U/$.96 GE’ CFC AGAINST THE
01:96:-mar Am: DEGREE z>*r.3.3.o5 PASSED rm
0.S.NO.4475/93 G19′ TEE FILE OF THE VII 3aI.’}fiL.
CI’3I’Y CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-19} ,
DI3MISSI1*?G THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT XNCKIRCTION.
4
-2-
THIS REA CGMING ex FGR HEAR:NG”éH£s BAX,
THE coca? MAEE yam FGLLOWING: » ‘W”»:»’r.*
The apwllant is
No.44′?5/1998 on the’ -;§:;.:Le”..;5::
City Civil Judge, aanéaicze.
2, For s;-édcaeti» cs-1_§’-;*C:«nvenience, tha
parties are} rafe.x:£’ed as their ranking
befa;:r1*::~. jfiihe E3fi,3l ‘aé:u:t:*t”;~w
filed the suit for
per’s::aiia:itv 3f.’:’1~:31i:.’;¢’c3;”an against the defendants as
ja:ex:锫v…:.,.;2’terfering with his peaceful
V .= ‘};>r:As’34é:;i«*.Es”:;:§95:”:. af the suit schedule prupazrty.
U4; ‘ i’:_’z.?i~ae plaintiff purchased the suit
$$hé;%ufie prczpexrty from
hzanjundappa and M Muninrafgu on 14-8-1980.
The plaintiffs name is also: antcarw in the
Katha. Extract and that the tax is being paid
regularly .
– 3 ..
5. The dafendant though served, remained
absent and hence he was placed axpart.e2V_}”-.._”T~..’
6. Tim plaintiff examined
and she has producea 12 ccumefitg 15 supper; *
of her case.
‘3’ W The cjourt _V$ffiér’V:§Oifi§,i
material an regard
had pxodxzced the sale dean:
and as sum’-av it was ta accept the
caifie VvA3plaj3:;r:§;iff. Accordingly the court
be1:$w__ suit. Henge the present
asvmfii ”
. Jfhe ccmnsel fer the plaintiff-
that in View cf Grder 41
“Rule? CFC this court has the pave: to remit
.A _ths:~:=~~ir:atter to the court: belaw. He further
*$bmitted that at the xelavant point cf tim,
the plaintiff was next in a pasitian to produce
the csriginal. sale deed. hence the suit was
-4-
aismiased. In View af the provisiénsgrfifexzed
to abcve, the appeal is ta be a3i¢wé§:an@ &hé
matter is to be remittefi }Ea&®” fax £résh=_i
adjudicatian.
9. on behalf learned
ccun$el submiE§f~tfi#%I $h% V99ur£ below has
rightly d$Smi$$g§ by the
plaintiff fig: fiQnf§%§§fi§§iun of oxiginal sale
deed.§_\ é%;$fd£fi§ fib’Efi£m the encumrance
ce%££fié$;af4isé §¢u;fi fiat be produced by the
pl%infiiff i$ §§é§ 5f the fact that the suit
sahadiéapr¢pe&t§ has alraady been said and
fl” _ the ‘afitxiag now stand in the name af the
“gpfir$hasé§Q”Hene he submits that theme is ma
9aifit.fifiAremandiag the matter.
“rib. aeard the learned csunsel for the
‘2 *parties.
11. The plaintiff’s suit was for
pexmanent injunctian. In order ta prove his
4
$5..
possession, the plaintiff must havaxfiyfiduced
the original documents. The ccnt¢§£iéfi ¢f_£he
plaintiff was that origfinag d&éd”%§$ givea ts”;
the GMC far mutating k§atg} VThe*§¢fi#figfie10wK””
was cf the cpinié§=_fih$t’fii£V §h§~mmfiigin#l
documents were with §£% CM? fi§E§#h§$?revented
him: from: pradé{ngi §fi@ fi§¥tifiied. cies at
least. In tfiat fifiéfi §fifi§$% %%E£er, the trial
cmurt:h§%Kéi§mi§g%fiitfié %fi;£j
{12. A$ ;%fe£#£§ tc by learned counsel for
theA’:p;;~.;;.nt:._£aEl’;– Order 41 Rule 239., :;£ the
court fram whose degree an appeal is preferred
‘_’h§é7d£$§gsedW©f the case atherwisé than on &
néptaiimifiéry paint, this court has the power ta
‘remand_tfie matter.
.13* In the interest of justice, I pass the
*f$l1awing ordr;
The appeal is allowed. The impugneé order
is set asiée. Matter if remanded tn the smart
-6-
beicw with a direction ta “the:
matter afresh, within three ”
date at’ reaeipt at’ a crgpy L Q
parties are at libgairtgy p.rad’t.:;¢e_:
docfurrants which for the
effective N The wart.
belaw is r1e’l:. _V_ ?t’-‘,.-_.;.V by the
V”¢.:a;:ij’:é.1::t in the ccxurse
of thiffé <:§{#'?'%t"; ' '
Sd/–%
Iudge