High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri P N D Kurup vs Smt Jayalakshmi on 5 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shri P N D Kurup vs Smt Jayalakshmi on 5 June, 2009
Author: H.G.Ramesh


~2.SREE$§AN’1’H.S.

M.F’.A.NO.94~63 1 2008

IN THE HIGH COIIRT OF KARNATAKA AT _

DATED THIS THE am 95.? cu? JUHE ;;–f _

BE!’-‘ORE T A
THE Hoxmm MR.JU8TIC’»fi H.(§.j?.AmE3i~: 4′
M.r.A.No.9453/zngtg – é %

BE WEEK’

P.N,D.KURUP, V _ 5
AGED ABOU’I’?’2’YRS, = ‘

S/O.LA”I’E.S.NARAYANA PILLAI; V V V

R[A’I’.NO. 1334, am MAIN, ABi;o.r:I<. *
RAJA»JINA(3AR1IS'TAC:E., i; _ f
BANGaLOE2E–56f}0g?£i._. _ APPELLANT

{BY SR1}d3A';SI:3_BASTi.§N;fEI§'V'.'j7
Am: V' …. __
1 .JAYALA§§:sH'MI, '

MAJOR, . ..

W/O.LA’fE.B.N;’SEE?I’HA_RAM.V.”

MAJGR, V.

AV’V$2O.’LAfFE.VB;§i.SEETHARAM.

_ ‘ BC’»TH’ A}’2AE”I§;f_:5&.TI’.i${:i;}’§..1335,
am MAiN,ABL£3_CEK,

RAJAJi;NAC:AR- 1:” STAGE,

4 ‘3ANGAL<3R'g_» 550 910.

‘ ;3’;»:::oM–M1ssIoNER,
BI”?,UHA’EBANGALORE MAHANAGARA
..}éAL§KE,N.R.sQUARE,
* ‘BANGALORE – 560 002. .. RESPGNDENTS

{BY SRE S.8UPREE’FU. ADV. FOR SR] RSRINEVASAEAH, ADV,

“§’C)1? Ra AND SR1 M’N.RAMAI\IJANEYA GOWGA, ADV. FOR R3)

-:2:-

M.F.A.H0.946.§12068

nus M.F~”.A. IS FILEE) U/o,43 rule my; GP’ cPc’_a’GAIrs;$f1f”1i%;§E%_
ORDER’ DATED 2117/2008 PASSED ON -‘A4.;’;A.m.’2 e — 3N ”
O.S.N0.6401/2006 ON THE m.}:«: 05′ ‘1’1«;’13;1x AuI3L;a:1′:’§; ,C1v1L.VAi>;p” ”

SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, (ccr§;No;5;’, 3AL_Low1r§e=

FILED U /0.39 RULE 4 OF cps FOR VA%G’A’17’E_i9I”(3 1N1*E_R;M €32

ENJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL comma o;v–.1–1iit3z2″‘A1)M1sS:’c~su @113 DAY,
COURT DELIVERED THE P”OL}.O1AfIN(§;: .’ ” ”

This % appégl the is directed against an
Interioer;ifeij?”di*{ie1:;’déLiefi«VV.:’2I/7%;/Vf2{)O8 passed by the trial
Court — Add}. City Civil & Sessions

Judge, ,Buat1a§al:(§re~,.7′ ‘{).S.Ne.6401/2006. By the

I-Vii imp;ig£1:ieéi*0I’der, Court has allowed i..A.No.2 filed

£33? 1 & 2 by vacating the order of

Lnjfificfion granted on 10/8/2006.

” ” VT I have heard the learned counsel appearing for

____”‘;eaa5i%:ies and perused the impugzzed order.

M.F’.A..H0.94-6312503

3. The trial Court without going into the

the matter has vacated the temporary

gound that the tenant of the p1aiI;1§’,I3′ soh’e(it1:le:””

who was alleged to be causing :”‘WaS=–..A1’2¢.,:c

impieaded as a party to –

appeaxing for defendant_ Ros. tttatfile would
furnish the name and tenant to the
trial Court to .v1″:;=,e;::i}Li_tat¢.’A’me:l:p1§i;j;:itt..VtoA::..eV§§;£1’i>1ead the said
tenant as appearing
for on obtainmg the
said ixifoimetioxa the tenant as :31 party
to the_st}it’ A S

t’ of the above, I deem it appropriate to make

thfi renewing

(E; order is set aside; the matter
“is” remitted to the trial Court for

_ reconsideration in accordance with iaw.

(ii) the plaintiff is permitted to impiead the

tenant as a party to the suit.

my

M.F.A. NO3463 (2008

(iii) the ‘trial Court shall dispose of

application i.A.No.2 expeditiously

event within one month from th<3..,;d_a.1;e :§'.)i'4_
receipt] production of a cc;pg2 fifthis £;rc1}§3'ii._ I

Appeal disposed off. V _
1: ~.,3hdge

*rnvs