KRWEST; BANGALORE
BY comssiama. RESPONDENT
N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE V. ._
DATED arms THE 293" my 01:' MAY, 2099
BEFORE
THE I~ION'BLE bum. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOILf{fl§'i§Af§. S' 4'
wart PETITION No. 14232;29o9L€i?*«;S;,*P(:;.
BETWEEN I
------------------------u-
M/'S TRICOM TECPBNIOLOGIES
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHE?
No.21S7, m CROSS, B.1vLKAvAL; , 'A S
I-IALIII STAGILBANGALORE, 77 = _
BY ITS PARTNER RPERHMAL. _ Bmmomzn
(By Sri. C M NAc};A:3i,I$rOi}A1*--?A; 4' I; V
AND:
"ma BANGALORE 1'.)_E'»'E3'-.OP'1\fiV°'r'§1T
AUII{O}L3.'I'Y A ~
O WRIT. " O':-;t'15LT1'IIC)NIS max) UNDER AR'I'iCLES 225 AND
2:27 01? THE {JONfs'ITI'U'I'ION OF }INDIA mm A PRAYER TO CALL
-.jjj..F:~; OF CS.N0.9518!0l, ON um mg ()1? ma
_ " S .HQN*SLE DC" ADDL. cmr CIVE & SESSIONS IUDGE AT
" .B;!1.N€}ALi'JRE {ccc-51, QUASH 1 SET ASIDE THE 01195.11
DT.I'5_.4;'i}§, PASSED ON IA.NO.10, E3 OS.NO.9518/01, AT ANN-E,
'I'I$R.EBY ALLOW IA.NO.10, FELED BY TIE PETITIONER AS
'O _'E'RA'£ED FOR AT ANN-C' AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMENG ON FOR P ARY
HEARHQG THIS DAY, THE COURT FASSEI.) THE FOLLOWING;
ow
declare that they are the owners in possession and offltlie
schedule prowrty mad for consequential X, T
pleadings the Trial Court fiasmed ti1eVfol1_ovvi11igf.is'si:es
issues.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner filed o.s. No. 951312001 against the si
Whether plaintiff iheiiis .’sia._assemi¢’ osmer in
Iawfui possession, peaeeifisl of fire
suit iboendaries and
filing of the suit?
that the defendants
‘ii’ out “title or interest over the suit
in the possession and
the said site for public auction thus caused
plaintifi is entitled to have a reiief of
” ii 321} injunction agsmst the defendants as prayed?
“‘1’owharo;-senate decree’?
= : ifidsditiottal issue
i.
Whether ihe plsintifi proves that it had perfected its title to
the suit schedule property by law of adverse possession?
5-.»
3
2. After completion of evidence and at the time of arguments
petitioner filed LA. No. 10 under Order 5 Rule 17 cm to ~
plaint by way of incorporating additional prayer as under: H __ – V
“To deem em plaintimas perrec?”‘*llitsel~:ies’llte file CH. T’ T X
schedule property bylaw of ‘;&.esseseie:a.”‘ V
3. Under the impugned oreleitlxe rejected’ 10
filed by me petitioner. Hence, this writ ” ‘- A’ ‘ ee
4. Issue ml; franied by the Trial Court
takes care of “Elie; althe that in the absence of
specific prayer. it the prayer is to declare
the petitioner ~poe3fi:sien of the schedule property. Wheiher
tile pefiiiener__is by Virtue of any title deeds or by adverse
lifisseeeien that is to be detezmined by the Trial Court on the
V Ville circumstances I find ne justifiabie gound to
xsirnpugned order. Accordingly the petition is hereby
/’ §ejeeteai.4_An3}”‘oheexvan7on made by the Tzial Com’: in the impugned order
Vlietlsxfluence the Court at the time of final disposal of the matter.
T accordingly.
Sd/…
Judge
LRSISOQSBOO9.