_ IN THE HIGH C30UR'l' OF KARNATAKR KT'
DATED THIS THE 17"! DAY 0F-MARQI1 .
PRESENT
11-In-. Homnm ma. Juawficm v,o.--'.
BETWEEN
MnHnj.'osMA'N Au .
$3,! A;F3;_m_!!. RAZAK LAG?-!"fl~'H_l_»1
AGED &B£3U*":*._'34'- .
.... ..TM(':nfiim,.p;:e2A _ * "
Fii'§Vi;fiA'R¢';}fi. _
C0 MPLAINANT,
(By .'3:i_4:"PRR'\f_l§§'S}N»-- RAIKOTE. ADV.. 3
cu-|U----V--
...Rfi§ibia'fi<7PAi.
0 KANNAIALAL MALL!
"AGED ABOUT 55 YEAFS,
(_)CG:BUSINESS.
RIO Kl-IAIDER HUSSAIN LAYOIJT.
W-J L'3.".1R GA'
2 vv-Aw.-nr-=2:-*-.0
s/0 VISHWANATH mxrr,
AGED ABOUT' 50
R[A'l' rcmmr-m HUSSMN mvnm,
GULBARGA. ..'.A' 'U
(By Sti : AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADv.. FORT'
ACCUSEB Has. IAND '2 } _V '~
4-
iF3 F'iLED Ui:'§s.11 8r. 1:: or
OF coum' ACT PRAYING T0 mmanz, GCJNTEMFF
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED» n-mar»
DISOBEYING THE ORDER mD;19,7~,o7; .PR§?SED IN
R.s.A.N0.1298/2005 VIDE ANNExULRE--e'-A.._ 'V
This COi1T€'-I"fl']3f {.1-iéeeecsefig 621 _i'§*r "Orv:€%:--.r.=s tbs'
day, SABHAHIT J., made flm_fi'.»1k)wj;Lg:- "
'ii'fiEfiIT1 order 1;%f'"f' -1'1'-- E": _"-*':= '_"T'*:-_-'*='9.""-W9. 4 No.1' .8 ,1 0005
'T; igfzciitrt ordered that penciing
dated
adtfnissiefi' V Appeal. both the
shall' et;fii't11ei~.t,fi1o;*"
V lt"is'"fl'1e contention of the comp1am;:1n' t. who is
__:_fh<_- in the appeal that the respondents . herein,
A ‘i-‘respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal have put up
V’ Vmuuuy uisobeyed th; 07:11? cafe 1 us- 1 -gr
mmwund wall to the pmperty in \ .:.-.-.e1i-:,-11. 9.:-.d. tb_..=:e,.y
IIIHAI ‘I! I _. — -.—g –‘A an-ma kill -Ill
‘ ” t .u. 1. ti’ .
Crmrt.
\9«9>-
The am respondent has filed counter afierring
that the suit was filed in a representative
respondents 1 and 2 have not put up oonsmrntfioni «.,
have no personal interest in .inb«_-rgreatisan.
4. We h oortnaeitappearing
for the complainant appearing for
the responrientai. Vatvergnrents made in the
antiflthe rejoinder.
5*. 4′ interim order passed by this
. rm A 3! that parties mu:
3 1 G .1 4′: «L4 |.P.I. zufl
V .grotrn(i%n1eae_1ning x 2413* x 1:33′ 1: in 33:. No.16 of
~. as “Kharler Hussain Layout”. In View of
the atrerrnents made in the counter that the suit is filed by
* : 1 and 2 in a representative capacity and they
no personal interest in the property in question and
they have not put up any construction. it is clear that it
cannot be s;u_L’tj. that there disobedience by
It
It is also ztvemed in the complaint that xesponclents “and 2
got constructed the compound wall around
thmugh others. but. the mucus who V’
the mmpotmd wall have not ._to’V”thia
1117 I -I lIWJ.I..l’. v
our power under “i”~ifi..tind
‘I’I-ngufili-u-rIIn_ 1:1
I 11:’-l’:’-l.’.a’-I L” 7′
ant
IUI J.l..l..l.
R
:5.’ Ir auniig . 1-r\’~ ntvnivfidn
I. 5] 5.I.I.n.y_..|_..s.I.I. v.1
1’2 = of ‘fil_i’. Cznntempt of
Comte Act. 197 1 and . z
the petition is dismissed.
‘
‘-‘~l’i’v’L’-I- \&’}-\3′—‘ V’