High Court Karnataka High Court

Lingaiah vs Shivarudrappa on 17 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Lingaiah vs Shivarudrappa on 17 April, 2009
Author: N.Ananda


IN THE H¥GH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA AT RANGALORF3

nA”rr«’:n THIS THE WTH DAY are APRIL 2006; Q’

BEFORE _ _
THE ¥~ION’BLF) MR.JtIs*n<::§;N.ANA':mAz *

WRIT PETVPION NO. 10561 }%209?:é;MaC?@ '«

BETWEEN:

Lingaiah

S / 0.13%: Dcsllpandc

Aged about, 51 years T . ,

R/at Abbanakuppc villagtfi” V’ A

Ridadi Hnhli _ – ‘
Ramanagaram2_’Tsfi::kvS€32 13169; .’.vPE’¥’¥’PIONF3R

(Ry Sri :?’~iA.Sh’21nf.I:i;z~f”rj:a;i:;’ 9Lda?:}%’,}-~

A..N.D;

4. -V , fil . S1*:’§s;z§Ii’idrapi1a–@___\{ijayak1 rmar

AS/’o.Réva.I’%_1d1’appa
‘ Aged –abm’:t.”.’f%2 years
at Hate} Rtmuka Darshani

“Near Ri19 jSfs’and
Fiidadivillgige

B1615-xii fiobli

..R:§m.a’fiéagaram ‘l’aiuk–~562 I09.

351/ n. Shivadevaru

” -“R/at C/o.”I’handava Murthj;

Near poiica station
Bidadi village, Bidadi Hobli
Ramanagaram ‘PaI:1k-562 109. …RFISPON”f)F3N’¥’S

[By Sri V.Vishwanath, Adv., for R4
Sri B.S.I-iadhnani, Ac:1v., far R-2)

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to qtuasla
the impugned order dated 27.6.2007 on T.A.No.i’2i in

O.S.No.187/2006 passed by the learned Ciyi1_”JL1d;gc’j.

(.Ir.T}n.), Ramanagaram at Annraxd? as iiIegal,_.-s_n’on’eoiAis..___ ‘ .

on the: face of the record resuiting in Miscarriagé of

justice. I _

This petition coming on for ;pmli_mi’hafy h<_§arii:fg–.iii1.i_:

'B' Group this day, this Court t.i1_14acic=;it=1jicé– .foHovy*,ii:j1g:v" '
There was an iiiviiifziaiiroilr of
rt-':spondsnt–piaintifT in the file of'

the Civi.iV.}ii(i§g'€iVf'{JrV.V Ramanagaram.

2. _Vfs.s{i§inoAa3fi’t.§i>1aintiiT made an applictation

~'”~.}1/s.v_’:ti’i5%4E__:(?.¥fC i”‘I§i.f’:E’……$’:’t]}.a contending that petitiont=:r~

‘ ” V . I ” EL. .

>ds.fF:ndan.t hy’-violating order of STBKIIS-qI]0&d1Sp(l°§S”3d him

from the possession of suit schedule property.

‘Fh1f-i’l€~.amed trial judge without understanding the

Section 144 (‘PC has ziirectsd restoration of
of suit schedule property to the plaintiff. it

, :.”is needless to state that in order to invoke Section 144

CPC, it is necessary to establish that riispossession or

variation possession had taic En place

)5

___;

E
. §