IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27"' DAY OF' AUGUST 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRUUSTICE AJIT J.OUNJAI§ . I V'
WRIT PETITION NO.633O2/-2O'G9{.GM-ECPD)1"'A
BETWEEN: A A
G.S.1v1ANSOOR,S/O O.S.ABDUL'RHA-DAR,
AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND __
BUSINESS, R/O 5'?" CROSS, KAPPAOAL ROAD
BELLARY, TQ. AND DIST.,B~E;LLARY. * " "
PETITIONER
{By Sri.S.S.YADRAMI,ADV.)
AND:
1. D. RANI'A'-CHANDF€2?y'--
S/O DEOJJAPPA g I _ _*
AGE 71 YEARS, OCS}-~ .AORI'C1_ILTU'RE
R /O RAKETLA IN 'AND.HRA' PRADESH
(3/0 No. 16113 KUVEMPU I=€AC_3AR
SECOND ROAD CANTONMENT, BELLARY
'~ _2, D'_'avI,I.AI*I{UMAR,' ----- -« *
_S"/O NARAYANASWAMY,
' . AGE 57' YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
' R/O RAKETLA_1~N ANDHRA PRADESH
-- ASECOND"fROV'AD CANTONMENT
B4ELLA..RY." '
.. .RESPONDENTS
A IIVTHIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
_ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDERS AT ANNEXURE 'A PASSED BY THE 13*
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) BELLARY TO THE EXTENT OF
DISMISSING MISC. APPEAL NO.37/2008 DATED 23/3/2009 AND
CONFIRMING ORDER ON I.A.NO.1 AND ANNEXURE B PASSED
BY THE 11 ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN) BELLARY ALLOWING
I.A.NO.I DATED 4/9/2008 IN O.S.NO.543/2008 BY ISSUING A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARINGQTHIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Defendant is the petitioner.
and 2 are the plaintiffs.
declaration and other V
respondents maintain 3 applications; is
under Order XXXIXV R’a1es’– Code of
Civil defendanbpetitioner
from alier_1ating’~._the’~sfiifplroperty, I.A.No.II is for a
direction. not “to_l_Vrnutlate the narne of the defendant-
I.A.No.III is once again under Order
lVf<;tilesp'.:=h1'lV..and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
'to the defendant–petitioner from interfering
A v~:C_WiVth"*~«_their possession. All the applications were
heéard together. Objections were filed. The learned
i."tria_1 Judge was of the View that there was no
%
justification for granting applications 1.A.Nos.I1 and
III. Thus, rejected the same. But, however,
as I.A.No.I to restrain the defendantpetitianeit-ifrioiiiii. .
alienating the suit property, ii
was of the View that the
and 2 have made out a 'facie. is V
balance of convenience Thus,
granted the app1icati_on, by the order
passed on the th:'id'efe'ndant~petitioner
and iiled appeals. The
appe1i'ate~. all the appeals. As
against " v.d.efendant~petitioner is before
it 2,, .i:t::Apparent1y, both the Courts below have
cgonciirrtently found that the plaintiffswrespondents
" =.hav.e made out prirna facie case and balance of
"V-convenience also lies in their favour and if the
defendant–petitioner is not injuncted from alienating
the suit property pending disposal of the suit, ir-
reparable Ioss and injury would be causedvVvtfiri'ieh
cannot be compensated in terms of money__.;'"'''' ' 7 L" 1
Having regard to the concurrent " -».
of the View that the question of tnttetfemtg
findings recorded by thetV__pC'.,Qurtsv- ilaelotcfit
arise.
‘ fiflittt
Nqrnergt; Rvegeetepdt ~ §.«3’v»«”:~,?;
3E3?«§”§§i
kmv