IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
IZMRTED THIS THE 4?" DAY OF OCTQBER, 201?}
BEFORE
THE 1~:o1~rBm MRJUSTICE H.Bn.LA;PE§; V} %%
M.II'.A.No.29o2!2c_i1o " 3
MERA.No.29Q3}'~~201Q"' I X
BETWEEK:
1.
M/sfisbestos Prod11cts.8.; _
Agencies, '
N621, Chikka AdLlgGdi," .
Tavarekcre Iv'Iai:1_VF_éoad:, __
Bangalore ~.-_5f>{) _
R6pI'€S€fitE'd ité . "
Preprieufix, *1
Sm.z'é: ~ 3560 C129.
Re-g::<3=ing at No.31/1,
" ___ " ' * " Chanciramukhi Patalamma
..T2=:m§le Stmet, South Ené Cirale,
Bangalore - 550 004.
3. Smt.Cha.t1dra.R.Laddha,
W/ 0. Sri.Rameshwara Laddha,
Aged about 58 years,
1%,! s.Asbest0s .Produc:ts and
Agencies,
No.2 1, Chikka Adugodi,
Tavarekere Main Road,
Bangalore --- 560 029.
Residing at N0.31/ 1,
Charlciramukhi Pataiamma; .
Temple Street, South Erzd Cite}e,
Bangalore --- 560 004.
(By Sri.D.Prabhakar, Adv. .e
M/s.Dua Asstss) ' 'A " '
ARE:
S/oyhate I\fIs3;1_t1.t«2},L1:.*'£<;i:£i*:,"'V-_, , '
Aged about 46 years, "
Residing at N033. V'
Piliaima G7r+m;1en," '' _ .--
Ba1;ga1o1je_§,),/ @230 084'; ' V
(35; s§r:.'21. s.13e§x;a@a3 $1;
Sri.eA;h'j1_;mih§;5u;111a;:ja Rae, Advs)
-V Theee. Ié2I,,F.'A.s are flied
V _ V Cis)if£1z1'1é}11
'-. ; ; .'AppeI1a3:1ts
Common
. . .Resp011dent
under Order 43 Rule 1 {r} of CPC
_ % the ercier dated; 23.02.2010 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 3
KJ1:-:§&'£sc..N§;153/2010 0:: the file of XIV Additional City Civil
_ Bangaiore, dismissing I.A.N0s.2 and 3 filed under
H E39 Ruies I and 2 of CPC .fr 'RI.
Thase MF'A's Coming on for admissicn this day, the
Court made the fo£i0wing:«~
JUDGMENT
These two appeals arise out of the coInmon._<§_if'd¢f,A.T.§i£§1tc?1'" '
23.02.2910, passed by the XIV !'addit}::C,i$IiiQim§fge;i’
Bangalere, in Misc. N(:a.153/2010 ;;;1_;.A.:S’:q$;:>, and 3; 1
By the iInp11gn¢:{I§ ord5r,–.. flié:-» “‘£;'(;-w1:E1’t has
rejected. the applications ‘ ..ifi;uncti0n and
therefore, these appeaiéx-._
3. IIi1.,_AbI7i€f,. flVi%::”- The appeiiants have filed
Mis(:.Petit.i0n m”;:v::sc.No, 10 for setting aside c~:x-parts
dscrea ‘it’: OV;’S;–I§I§§,__1§83/2008. The appeflants have
filed_app};i{:a{“iQ13s«._fc>3*__ temporary injunctioxz and they have
peer; rejeritsad {,,3.I1§I’;th:53i§’€fOI’f3, these appeals.
AA T Tf1@_. éiieamed counsei for the appellant <:0z1i:ended
Court was not jusfified in rejectifig "the
ap§ii::a_tibns and has errfid in rejectilag the applications 021 the
ground that the appiications are not nlaintainable. Be'
my attention to Sectitm 141 of CPC. and subn1itt,§3{£:«..thé§t'L:'-the… .
appiications are Inajntainabie. Furtt1er__h;.cj sutaift1'1tté:$ tilat, 1.3' "'
the pzroperty is alienated, altered
appellants Wit} be put to great aria is
flecessa;-y to grant i;r;jt111<:tio;f1. that
the impugned order caxmat _V
5. The }[€iaI’11€{7}.(?O1}.I’1:3{:l’:.f'{§1f’ submitted
that, after the d¢:c1§<.'s:¢ t}§1{:ijé'r§§:sw1§<5i:1d<ant has taken
possession _C,'-(»*:§t'11*1:, and has iet out the
premises to ofitj "Propri.<.=:to1* of M/3.2351311 Oi}
Corp0ratio1j;–a11_d cairyingvozx the business and therefore,
.i.zi3';311g:"2.?e::cI3"~£:3:*d't:1fA.dines'Vfiét cal} for ixlterference.
6.”. hafi<§'tjc:é:'ef1:1iy considered the submissions made
_ tb§,{_t1'1¢ }ean:1a:c1itj:oi1r1se1 for the gyarties. The decree is ex»-parts
The respondent has take}: possession through the
C{)U1'i and has let out the premises to one Fiaz
'Sheififi and he is in occupation of the premises. It cam1ot be
disturbed. However, in the circumstances of the case, it is
proper to direci the respondént. 1101: to alter the nature of ""3113
prapfirty iii] the: disposal of the MisC.petit.i.on V.
respondent shail net lease the property to any _ V'
axcept with the permission of the
With the above 0§)se1vatjon"a_§1'dV_ diréctjpn, th€::. appcé1s
are disposed of.
IvIisc.Cv1 Nos. ezkso/2Q%:n;_ 6931,Z:2<m),~j~1'.5Ji28/:20 10 and
6929/2018 do not accordingly,
sdl§_
Iudge