Ajith Kumar A G vs W Bhagyanathan on 8 March, 2010

W.P.NO.6580/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 83' DAY OF' MARCH 2010

BEFORE

THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE K. Bsgxtimxrawsjxigx-~11: 4. _

WRIT PETITION No.6580/2040   "   A _ 1'

BETWEEN:

Ajith Kumar.A.G,

S/o. Girivasan,

Aged about 32 years, =
R/a. 'Ramesh Nivas',
Vasavarnbha Road,

Ramamurthy Nagar M_a'in_.Road';"" -- :1": A

Bangaiore«~560 016.; '  ._

(By Sri.T.S.Arnar Adv,  V V'
for M / s._Ls1wy'er's £3139, A.dvs_.'} "

AND:

W.Bhagyanathafi,.._4 A V
S/o.Wi11iam,, "  A ~
Aged abo:,1£::52i'years, "  _
R/aj'i'Eo. 1'3 / 5,5»-K. M..Co10ny, EEEEE it
New Byapariaha.1ii_,  _
Enc1iianagar--Post," it  A

 2 L» Banga}-;)1"e.--_56O   A ' 
 (By. Sm'.Vi's'hnuEM'u"1;thy, Adv.
~    for M/s_.\'/Tishnu Murthy Associates, for C / R]

 we ..  ...PETI'I'IONER

. . .RESPOND ENT

   "2°This"Writ Petition is fiied under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Co_r1stitu"t;1on of India, praying to quash the order dtd.22.2.2010
  --,"pa_ssed§on I.A.No.5 flied by the respondent 11/ s.15} of CPC on the
 . _ file' of' II Acidl. Civil Judge [Jr.Dn.}, Bangalore Rura} Dist,



W.P.NO.6580/2010

Bangalore in O.S.No.110-4/O4 as per Annex--E & further be pleased
to dismiss the said application filed by the respondent and etc.)

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary s- 

day, the Court made the foiiowingr

ORDER

The petitioner/ defendant in 1.1104/200:-4’_iAo’r1~t11eV

11 Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn’§’}s«,.rBangaIore”-Rurai: vdfiffjtistrict, 0′

Bangalore, is before this for.._quashVing”‘Vthe order
dated 22.02.2010 passed on Section 151 of

CPC in the above said’ at§;AAnn’e::ureA”‘i%I;~_ pp . 1

2. submits that the
petitioner is’miavv_ hetthas not interfered with the
peaceful possession and of the suit schedule property
by the he has not disputed the order of
in favour of the respondent in the

suit;-. flan the petitioner flied an application under

Section 1.51 of ~C’_1?’CAfpraying the Trial Court to irnpiement the order

“*’f.-:i.of.__Vtemporavrjti’ injunction granted on 06.04.2005 through

4”-.’ju;-is’?i1e::¢{na1 poiice. He further submits that the Triai Court has

“noted that the essential circumstances for the purpose of

W.P.NO.6580/2010

essential ingredients are not existed. it is pertinent to mention

that the subject matter of the suit is only a Vacant site;

such circumstances, in the absence of an appiication_–uncie19 .

XXXIX Rule 2(A} of CPC by the plaintiff, tlfiere Was’ no”

for the Trial Court to pass the impugned iordeit .. in ti:;-ted

impugned order is not sustainable the eye’-ofdiaw.

5. In the result, the peti_ti0n:is” and itiietggrnpugned
order dated 22.02.2010 gfknnexure ‘E’ is
quashed. It is made circumstance
made out by impediment for the Trial
Court to “po’1ice’}to provide assistance in

accordance with law’ ” H gggffi/,_

bfiys» ..