.. ~' ML1nm3E{'Qi1a1'a.
IN T}--IE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS '1'?-IE 17"" DAY OF NOVIEIMBER 2009
BEFORE?)
THE) E--ION'BLE i\/{R.JUS'i'iCE SUBHASI1 i.3.AI.71"j .
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7747/2'o(:)9v (C1561 * M
BEYIWNEEN:
M / s Upiime Adverii.sii1g;§.
Rep. by its Managing Par1.1'1er.
Sri. KS. Chacko.
S/0 Eats Sri. K. Samuel,
Aged 40 years. V
No.9. Chan1u11c11Comp1eX. _ 5 'V
Outer Ring Road, Maruihi Néigar, " _
BANGALORE-- 560 094 _' ,, .. APPELLAN"E'
{By Sri.G.S.Ve11k3:i "
AND:
Sri. P. RajiaShekaAV1*{:vV
S/0 sn Papaiah 17\':=:_(:1Ll._\}f",A-C'. '
Major, R/at'NV0.391.»_ '--
Near Ayyappa'Temp}e.. A
V211'thL11'.VE/lain Rciaci, ' ~
B"AN«Qis;i,o£z1: 4550 03 . .. RESPONDENT
(E3; SifhiCG';V!'3§i;}ivi;1"--.tgf":SI'i.K.MO1]21I1. Advs. for C / R)
iJ.is"~-§/iisé. Firs': Appeal is iilecl U.E1d€I' Order 43 Ruie Mr} 01'
agaiiisig the 01'd€}." dated: 3.9.2009 passed on i.A.N0.'1 in
Oi,S:i\'i0__.361'i2/2009 on 'the file of the XXW Addi. City Civil and
C S'€S:3i()né.; Judge, i3ar1ga101'e, [CCH N06}. rejectirig the LA. filed
/0 39"RuIe 1 and 2 of CPC for '.i'emp0ra1'y injunction.
C This Appeai coming on for admission this day. tkie Court
C V C . _ h '4 ldciivered the fo11.0Wir1g:
n
T .J
I
J U D G M E N T
This appeat is by the ptaiiitiff agairist the orde-.1′ on 1.A.No.i.
dated 3″-‘ September 2009 in O.S.No.3612/2009 pz1ssedT’..’by the
XXIV Add1.City Civii 81 Sessions Ji.1dge. Baiigalore Ci’ty..,_ »
2. The suit is one for permanenti11jbLni(:ti–on”i’e.s'{i’airii’1ig the”.
defendant. from obstructing his use of the :p1″e-guises’-.1easedio ‘hiiii
for putting up the hoeirding. ailiedgesdd tt1a1i;’v:’tfl’n:e…,defe§ndai1.t,tL
without any right has prevented t.11eV”‘p:1ai1V1_t.ift’ from t)ut.t}ing up the
hoarding. in this regard; 1_’1’c1″£_1 r;eti’ed.._’o.ii’~t’he lease E1.§___{1’€€fi1€I1T.
entered into between the p1ai:–1,t_it’f andxi”he”dei_’eri’d’ant..
3. The the material rejected the
appiieationin dfited.ur;de–rv’Order…}’:>{XIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC
against which this been filed.
tyearriedd ‘Co”uiise1dT.t’or the respondent – defendant
si1bin’i’t–t;ec1:,.,”ithat, thervemis no dispute as regard to the lease
exeeteited tiyétiidve«respondent in favour of piaintiff. He also does
not ‘(1»iS§)Lk{‘.§3.U’T’§fit.K the premises is leased for puttiiig up of two
-‘.._iio21rdiriLg:3Va’is per covenant. No.5. i'”Iowe.ver, he submitted that the
it Vp–1aiV:itifi:«without any Cause of action has filed the suit. I’)efendant.
had? never obstructed or 3revent,ed the )1aint’.iff from i1t,t.in’f u
i I in
, Lthe 11c)ardi1ig. In this i’eg21r’d. he submitted that, there is 21 suit
pending between the pIaint’ii’fa1’id the C()1’p()1’E1E.i(.)1’1 and it is not
519;:-»