Sri Shariff Sait vs Sri B Balakrishna V Baliga on 16 December, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 16?" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA__GOW'QAfl A

WRIT PETITION NOS.39861-398ۤ2]2O'1Q('GIYI;+COP'C> 

BETWEEN:

SRI SHARIFF SAIT
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ A  
R/A NO.35/4, GROUND FLOOR _ 
ANKAMMA BUILDING  '
OPP. MICO BANK GATE  '

CHANNAPALYA BANGAL_O_-RE  '

(BY SRI D.NAGAF:AJ:_'AB"J'.3V';__ A  

AND:

SR1 B. BALAKRISHN.A v'. _BALI'GA_;~

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS-   

S/O B.PIr<i.;:'NTA BALIGA.' .

R/j'A' N.O.5-8,"'SUI<AvDA YAMUNA BAI ROAD

MADHAV.,I\TAC5vAR,--.BAN_GALORE - 560 001.

 PETITIONER

:RESPONDENT

TT~HVE--S.E  PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

IN O.S.

, '=A'ND 227.__OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 22.11.10 ON I.A.2 AND 6.12.10 PASSED BY
---._,T'_jFH.E"-.,LEARNED1~ TRIAL JUDGE
 _ ANNEXURE-3 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.2 FILED BY THE
 '-.PETI"TI_O.NER UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 CPC.

NO.7072/10 VIDE

   THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
A A  HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOwING:-



ORDER

Petitioner has filed suit for specific performance –

respondents on 6.10.02. Aiong with the suit,

restrain the defendant from alienating,or-enct’i’m’h’4eri’i–n’g vVth.e;sE,.j,t 0

property. I.A.2 was filed to pass Wan1’_’_’o’rder’~.aF..’Vte,mpb.ra’r-yu

injunction restraining the defenda_n«t..,.from’- inte.rfe-rin’g”w’ith the”

piaintiff’s possession and ehjoymen_t:’o.f thve spit’-propfierty. An
exparte order of temporary”‘-..irij1.in–ction.’aswifipifrayed in I.A.1 was
passed. However, emergent.~;’iotice the temporary
injunction prayed .to’tie”‘i’s’sued. The plaintiff
filed an application’::-to,:__aVdQ’a’n’c.e from 19.1.2011 to
6.12.2010. These writ petitions have

been filed to Afqaash th’eVo.rde’r”*d”ated 22.11.10 passed on I.A.2

the matter for some time, Sri D.

V”:NagaraJ, i.e’arn”ed.’counsei appearing for the petitioner, seeks

4,perrriissi’oiis..,,.tovflwithdraw the writ petitio with liberty being

reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate orcierein the

penmngsant Tgifa’

In view of the submission made by the iearrieiji

is unnecessary for me to consider the

petitions against the impugned orders’1′.anrii”records any

thereon. The writ petitions stand’re:j”e~c:_ted it
In case there is any urgency,-t–hegv–pétitioneAri ‘i’s-Aat’Viiberty to

fife application seeking preponregmerittoii t.h’e’:%_§;git-and for passing
appropriate order. The Triai:~Cou’rt:: to’r:o–nsitierr.V’a’ny appiication if

filed, in accordance:–.witij’V_i.awv. __

…. H Sd/,
JUDGE

sac*

grounds “.raise_tfV’ in th’e7writ

”

c:c;~urisei,. _it_ ‘