JUDGMENT Hoard Sri.M.V.Shesha<:ha1a, learned ~ A appoaring for thi': a:_g§pep1:1 a'r3ié_j -- J Sri.H.J.Krishr1amuri:hy, iearneci. oouri:;§a1i".Vgrppeo,tfirig the third respondent and perusoCi~vr.1:f1s:¥ r<3<:vor--:1.S.*»-
2. The appeliarrtiéitfiaaI?<é'–V.L. '4 in Q8
No;18€32/2006 on '*t}}.€ fileloqfl Court,
Bangalore. I.A~_I'_?»\§.~%:aAS& of temporary
injunction from interfering
with the disposal of the
suit.
s»1iii«…__h.s;s been contested by the
oféforzvirfiiérntsv written statements. The defendants
:7″a,_ aIso ‘fii€’:i to I.A~f. Considering tho rival
oontentiorgsr’ the record produood by the parties, the
nCj::.2z_;rt i1as held I.A,No.E to be devoid of merit and
3?’:
K?”
,6
in
has passed an order sf dismissal on 15.03.2007. Being
aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this Misce}iane_C:»a}js«..t_t”‘–_
First Appeal.
4. Indisputediy, the resportgiergtiéptifidaf _
herein have filed OS No.3251.,?2_QO8 “a§ainst
appeliant herein and others, écgurt,
Bangalore for partition? ether
reliefs. In the of
OS No.1862/2_QC§;6’4 ftcypjtadjudication.
Learned tyeuld submit that,
there is at; etatussque paased in OS
N0325 1 / 2O’O8_anVd é§a.niie.eVytsV.’0pe1*ating even now
‘ gin ‘View’ df”””t1*1Ve fact that there is an order
pae~_,ses’§.. Vdir:ee_t1′;ig..maintenance of status «W quo in OS
‘”‘Ne.82:E..]4 is unnecessary for the appelianta /’
“”T.-TiV”v’ApIaiI;tiffs .t=:}_A’:’pr0secute this appeal further. It would be
iEZt”£1’VTi€~..it;;’f€F€$1: at the parties to: prosecute the respective
E,
‘3/7
suits fer final decisian at the earliest. In the said Vi€W
of the matter, the appeal stands dispztssed of as fGH(}’i?i§’€32V_:
L The Trial Ccuyt is Ciirected :0 ”
No.1862/2088 with as Eé’é;’32«5};’f2Q;¥3:6 ‘-V 1
and held a commen trial.
ii. The plaintiffs in S
shall begin firs: with-air. eazmenée
adduced $2 coi13p1_gted f.a_t ‘4 “: ‘earliest
and at any eve1f;.t..’t§€f0I é_
iii. Thg : 8 62[/’£006 will
f'{§_2;1<v:I-».. :-*c'tV;"§;»V ex};i<ience and
earliest and
'}:yei1:)reV The other
déi'e;;dan§:s_ 3251 /2006 will also
. 'V adducé sizcie of evidence alcsngfwith
' E"i1f1€:v'p1ainii:ff$'Afin <33 560.1852/2038 and
V * . 'i;1–".J_:'%2" f::T::::f': ,:'::1i1'z_g of evidence 13$ completed
17. 12.201 1.
AA 13;. x v.}’§;=::arned advacaies appearing fer the
parties ‘§?§?i§ address the arggmenis and
gfé
éfésixafi
gr”
,,
6
the Triad Court to decide the suit as
early as practicable and at any event V.
befom 31.03.2012,
I’: is needless to observe that tlige
not take into consideration any findings in’ obsé1fiVé.”EiCans=.< «'
made by it while passing the on
No.1 882/2006.
Contentions of both file” ‘open.
N0 costai. . '