High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Banggreen Holdings Pvt Ltd vs M/S Anko Constructions Pvt Ltd on 1 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Banggreen Holdings Pvt Ltd vs M/S Anko Constructions Pvt Ltd on 1 June, 2009
Author: H.G.Ramesh
M.F.A.NO.24?4/2605

-53-

THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE; Mr} CFC
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.22005 PASSED ON I.A.NO)1

IN :33 NO.9034/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII A£>:3L.cI.*i"x-'--,
CIVEL JUDGE, BANGALQRE (Can-15;, Dismissime 1.A.4Is4.c3;-;fi_ 
FILED BY THE AP?ELLAN'F HEREIN UK) 39 R 1 &j;;'.;:i(',s:2_'-._ 

GRAN!' OP' EXPARTE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING 'E'HI.-$1,   3

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:   ._ '
JUDGMEN?«" V .
"his appeal by the  
ixiterlocutoiy order dated.   bj§..thef§tI'ia1
court - the Court of 'viii  =<i::vi1 Judge,

Barigaiore, in thejsuit  N¢;é::se34/3904. By the

impug1e:~:_:1 or_c'iez9;g i.:;t_1e, £3-tmrt has dismissed the

appficati0ii~i,2%..eNe."1éV  the appellant/p1ai11tifi'

S uncie;;_;):~c1«:r ;me1;1es 1' 83.2 of the CFC for gain: of an

V. '~.Vpv;fiieritb£"  injunction against; the defendants

 reepeci'  shit property.

 ._  hsive  the learned counsel appearing for

  Vajtipeflam and perused the impugxed order. None

 .___"';'.:ip15¢eared for respondent No. 1. Respondent No.2,

_ Lthrmgh served with the notice of the appeal, has

remained umrepresexuted.

W

M.F.A.NU.i2474[Z2(‘i05

-3-

3. Leanleci counsel appearing fer the appellant

submits that on 1.6.2005, this Court had genteel

interim order restraining the respondents/deie;1d§§;fi t_S’.j’ ”

from disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful 3

occupation and enjoyment of the I. T

common amelaifies and faei§iitiesV” .e:ijoye¢f1 ‘ V

plaintiff and their tenants e_u St:ar }II1dia
Pvt. Ltd. The said oi’de_r.Hf1a_$..e’.been continued

from time to time and is .i:1.fQrce–as dii’.d.€ite.”‘

4. L(§4′.3:I’I};€C1.1 – __ — appearing for the

appeilant’/A presently there is no

disturgfizinee TbyV”‘EheVres:=pondents. He further submits

.i e*~–gosted for the defendants’ evidence and

as ‘?jie,eaI?51’e’sai{i.’ii1terim order has been in force for the

‘last: 4′ égreais, the appea} may be disposed of in

V’ ,0? ?the said interim order. He further submits

‘eertain ebservations made 112 the course of the

‘V V ‘4″‘Viefpugned erder would prejudice the ease of the

appeilantf plaintjfi”. Hence, he praymr a direction to

W

M.F’.A.NO.247’¥[2f}___{}5

-4-

the trial court: to dispose of the suit expedifloizisifif ~

Without being influenced by the o__bse1f\;auoi1’s”

the course of the irapugaed order.:”:.&I§>’e;fe1*:LV oitzeiwise, 77:

my opiruion, the tria} court not be_
the observations made an intefioczogtoijf ‘orsiier,

disposing of the main. matter. “

5. in View of    "it....g_ppmpriate to
make the    7
(1)  that 1  is sebaside; the
   by this Court on

‘ 1.€3:~:3005V Va;11o«v_extended fiom time to time
. Shel} eo11ti:;3_._1e,ti1l the disposal of the suit;
v. court is directed to dispose of the
A’ v.. S&ujvi Vi.n_.1~~O.S.No.9034/2004 expeditiously
_ 3116 Egiii any event Within six months fiom
” ,. sizigevdate of receipt] production of 3. copy of
. {his juciment and without being
A influenced by the observations mafia in

_o the course of the order impugned herein.
Appeal disposed of.

Sd/–

Judge