High Court Karnataka High Court

R Lakshmipathy vs Mallapalli Muniswamy on 26 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
R Lakshmipathy vs Mallapalli Muniswamy on 26 November, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

OATEO THIS THE 26?" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA A   

WRIT PETITION NO.21O5G/ZOIOFQMEEACPC)1*.     

BETWEEN:

RLAKSHMIPATHY
S/O LATE K.V.RA3APPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ANNASAGARA VILLAGE, .. -
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI,   _  '
BANGARPET TALUK. I :   ' 

 E' "'.';';PETITIONER

(BY SR1 K, RAG!-iAVE|,\}D*R_"/V3,»'&_tRAC'3,, '  Q  

AND:

1. MALLAPALLI MuA1ISw_AM'If=_ "
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA', '
AGED ABOUT 7o'~rEARS.,',*-- .
R/AT AN,r§A'SAGAPVA""VILLAGE,

,_v*"I<*er.ASAM._EIAL,_L1r:.oEsLI,  ---------- 
'vBA:$IG,ARPET'TALuag_.

 2. NAGATAAI  "

S/O M.U'F€ISWAf9f}' 

  AGED A-BOUT AMEARS,

R,/AT ANNASAGARA VILLAGE,

 'IKYASAMBALLEI HOBLI,

 I - S'ANGAR,PET"TALuK.

...RESPONDENTS

‘ *'{“EYEfS’RI .?§.G.CHANDRA MOHAN, ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION ES FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAY.:N:§-«.._Tov

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY Tn.El’_:’.’LE’A.’gNE0i._.TI.

PRL.CI\/IL JUDGE (SR.Dl\i.) AND JMFC, l{:G.F. INFivi;AIN.O}’1}2«0’10oo:it ‘~

DATED 10.06.2010, FOUND AT ANNEx:oRE:—aifi. ” ” 4

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR”vER’ELIMIN.A_Fx”+.iEAF<fNG'

IN '0 GROUP' THIS DAY, THE COUF?.T"'MADEv.T'H.E F.OL_LO'w'I"N'G'§I

Mallapaili .1 in this writ
petition, has filed;" Civil }udge
(Jr. Dn.) and his mother
Smt. t'he…r:§'elief of declaration and
injuncti'o.n.'~ the said suit have filed the

written staVtie{hent§ ._Tw.o" aioplications were filed in the suit

by plaintiff'Se-eig_i_n_gitemporary injunction ie, one with

regard to'ailiEenati_on and another with regard to possession.

Writtwn and statements of objections were filed

[to both tt1Ve.Va.V;3plications. The Trial Court allowed I.A.2. and

::ihasi—._.paSSsed an order of injuncgon restraining the

f,,/'

f,…

defendants from alienating the suit property. However,

the Trial Court did not find merit in I.A.3 seeking

temporary injunction against the defenda,n.ts’_A».tfi§o;rn’._

interfering with the possession and

plaintiff over the suit property ;”and:’.’_’p’asse.d”an

dismissing the said app|ication._go’nV_17.i”2,Q9_Qsnn’ex’ure5C).
Aggrieved, the plaintiff __has fi|Ved:VVV:iV3v.A’;’?,/1()..in–t.he_.t§ourt of
the Civil Budge (Sr.DnV.j”‘a”§.,;<';.gv.¢?:} .the_Vsaid appeal is
still pending. V V

2- ".¢'i¢i'itiy "*'.y_5w':i'~':"'VVV'fi|ed o.s.1s5/09
against,the of Civil Judge (3r.

Dn.), permanent injunction in

respect of”th_e He had filed I.A.1 seeking

___order};ovf*temp’o’rary ____ _injunction. Respondents herein /

def’er_ida.ntsy ‘have. filed written statement and statement of

oE>jiect’iovvnsAV’é.t’o. application. The Trial Court by its order

~V dated ..1’i?,V1’2:O9, allowed I.A.1 and passed an order of

luv'”fteirriporavry injunction (Annexure-A) restraining the

— re-spondents / defendants from interfering with possession

W2′

being filed by the appeiiant, M./A. 3/10 be preponjedj to
4/12/10 and both the appeals shali btewtaken V.

4/12/10 and further order passed.  in  
Contentions of both parti:es""arefi 
consideration. V      I V  
The appeals shall be   by beiow 'V
before 18/12/10.  i i ii 

Writ petition stand'sJa_i|'owed 

      sale

sac*