'Sri s::és}3_Tmaha1 M
' 'V P' Pumic Sc33QO2.--Road,
-- j -vBgt:g3iore~S€}G G04.
': V' i}".;:z2a Ramcsh,
" -MVajor,,§
'V ..,G:mdm Bazaar Main Road,
Bésavangudi,
\. Bangalorevfiét) ()4.
WP Na 3 :">i64f2i)G8
as THE HIGH comm' 0:? KARNA'I'Ai~;iA AT 13A:~:<;A.r;c§;~é::»_V:A'
DATED THIS THE 12% DAY OF JANuAR¥.;;§){}«:':;»,.,,
BETWEEN
Sr). ST Krishnappa, V
S-[9 S T Thimmajah,'
Age: 66 ycaxs, ' 5:" a « _
R/at No. 102-3, 3 AIp_.ii1f: i?ég€,n6§%',- [H
10th'C'Main Road, :1;__ '_
1*' Biack, Jayéinagair, 'V '
Bangalorevifié-O_f)11;v."V « . Fefitioner
(By Sri Mahés.l_n S, iietéfiéklcr)
Am): 1' V ' .'
S} gr '1-'-93:: Mi_3r;;€:haniii§i,_
A/at i'~{o.'-3533, '
Basavanaguiii, '
Vfio Ramesh Baku,
!%.4{'a"No.51,
Byuité Brauqh Respondents
VC{)I}StitIiE’?§O12-. Of;lI1Cii£l, praying to quash the oniier datcé 24.1 1.2008
_ *–.__pa’f$f$e£i by «the; Civil Judge in O S No.1283/2063 Vida A1mexum–H
” ” ~ cir:. Vtizs application filed 5}? R-5 anti restrain “Rd. to 4 from crtzating
~ rights over the portion of the schedule property
* wtgmfe ‘R’.-53′ has vacattzd, etc.
{ Petiticn commg on for prclizxzxinary hearing this éay, the
‘ Court made the foiiowingz
WP NU,i§i£§4f2G(}8
3. Smt. Chaya Amarnath,
Wji) Sri K § Amaxnaih,
Major,
R] a Ne.?97,
H A Main, 2119* Phase,
JP Nagar, –
Bangalartz-.560 0778. I
4. S3311. S A Sfilakshmi,
W/0 Sri S A Adinaxayanamiifthy,
Major, ~ . *
Rfa No.V–84, 3″ (Eros
Malleswaram,
Banga1(>m»56(} < "_'–
5. The Kenn” V§;$ya_”Bai’1ii:__Ltd…;–.._
No.11, Reshma Mali, 1′,
2nd Cross, K”C}”§Q.’.Qétf1 E)&icnsi@.n;~-
Ba:ngalore–£_S6O _
Rep. by i£s Brajncii Mé:1iagt:r._
6. M] s. Saha;:€&.11i¢i§a i,t;i’.’,,_ ”
211$’ F1c>{)r,_ -Hospital Road;
Ba11ga1or£:–56@ 053, ” A
may
.”:*z{:s \e\e’;rfi*£ ?t:t:::iti011 is filed u;1(i<3r Articles 226 '$5 22? of the
WPN . "
ORDER 01536) 2908
The petitioner/;)la;i;1tifi” in O S No.1283/2003 on the 1336 of
Add}. City” Ciivfl Judge, Bangalore City, is before this Court, gxaying
for quashing the order dated 24.11.2008 at Armexurc-H. »T
2. Learned Counsel for ‘ 1 that
respondent N03}. for 4 are 1}:1t_=:y have let: out a
po.ri:’o11 of the in (if ” fi5().5;I B311}-:. The
rcsponiieznt No.5] Section 35}. of
(1 £3 (3 in the stliit over possession of
the suit ” _* afiowed permitting the
respondent hand over I;’§1a.t portion 0f the
suit pmycxty xi11 fasz§§AurV 0f A.défé:11daz1t N03} to 4 under a valid
is that though the defendants are
not iqsr damages to the piaintiff, the trial (10331:
V V uezred ‘ h§;cT::a;3plication.
” Tfie.v__ }ea1necl trial Judge has righilty pezmitazd the
0.5 to deijver a porfion of the suit pmprtrty to
h Nos.1 to 4 under a valid acknowiedgincm and ymduce
k¥
WP Ni). i i§i€14£2i}§}8
the natarised Copy thextof before the ifiourt, Withm one weak from
the {iatc of possession frem {iefendant No.1 to 4 and :;i:i;-ecafng
defendant N03. 1 to 4 31;; hczkl the said gropcrty subject
and conditions as mentioned in the agreement tiatgii
The mm Court has further ordered the:/t…e.I:;icr ‘ 1
of advazrtf: alnount fo defandant No.5». be §0i1S.i(f;CIjfia in due
course. The: impugned order by does not call
for interfererxce.
4. In the =ii9es’;V;;’i’*.*, ‘i;’£’1:-é%_ zmeii the same is hereby
dismissed. “”” – ‘
Sd/-
Judge