WP 603'? ,/2003
I
11!' T33 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 10"" DAY OF' BECEMBER, 2008
BEFORE
'!'HE HODPBLE MRJUSTICE B.S.PATIL
BETWEEN:
1. sm. AMBUJAMMA,
WK) LATE BASAVAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT ":2 YEARS,
2. SMT. KEMPARAJAMMA,
DIO LATE BASAVAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
3. S9/IT, CHANNAMMA,
DIO LATE BASAVAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ALL ARE RIO CHAJJAL'EG{)Vv'DANA' " ' V
DODDI VII.;LAGi3; ~TALU1{, ' '
BAN(.':ALC=_R.ERURAL'.DISTR1C'1".,V *
4. SMT. BI~¥ARATHI'--HAN'E¥M3kNTH Ram.
AGED ABOU'I"§i YEARS; .
No.17, smegma GARIBEN, '
D0DDA§:A;.LAsAN:3RA VILLAGE,
KANA.I{;AP1IR;A ROAD," _
"BANGALORE.-565.952. " """ " - PETITIONERS
(BY_s1a>:.jS.':a%.H§§Gf1'a,:H1j13LAMAN§:, ADV.)
»,_ AND: .'
1.' SI~:!T ;'u3.Y13l;r~AF'£'§%II" N. RAO
WW/0 B.S.NA¥RAYANA RAG,
' ._A«:*.~r§r3 ABGUT 4'? YEARS,
'~._R{O NQ349. 11*" CROSS,
' _ 1.41" .M.AIN, J.P.NAGAR,
* BANGALORE - 560 O?5.
T " -SR1. aasavaamu,
@ MYRAD BASAVARAJ,
~ BIN sm. BASAVAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
WRIT PETITTON NO. 6G37[2008 (GM-CPC3 '" "
WP 603772008
ALL ARE RJO CHAJIALEGOWDANJR
DODDi VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
3. SMT. VIJAYAEAXML
WJO BASAVARJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
-4. MASTER PAVAN KUMAR,
SIC} BASAVAR-JU,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
(REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN V >
BASAVARJU, THE RESPONDENT N02 '
HEREIN}
5. KUMARI VIDYASHRI,
D/O BASAVARJU,
AGED A300? 20 YEARS,
ALL ARE RfO CHAJJALEGOWDANA "
Donor VILLAGE, mmmmm, ; _ _
BANGALORE RURAL r31s*r12Ic':*:',~ if; RESPONDENTS
THIS PETTTION 13 r«*:;.,E:;;...:..Iz~.i_I3jz«::e'Ar:1*zC.i;E:s"é%gs"& 227 0? THE
CONS'I'I'I'U'IION oi? 1:32:53. 13i2;o;~2z:~;i;--?r?o "s1:=';fc~As'::r>zs'; THE HVIFUGNED ORDER
ANNgxURE-4...%.2:aA_§s!s:b"*:é;¥_ AD--131,.....5C1wL JUDGE (SR.DVN.}
RAMANAGARAM 'f.'HE.___APP_i.ICATION LA. max IN o;s.
No.s86/2006"-QT; 4: 1 .01 .2668. 133'; ('$303 0?' W12?!' OF CERTIORAM OR
ORDERAND - " '
NPETTTIONRCQMINGVON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE comm'
Ti~:'~:~e:'F{)Lz.o'w:»:<3; """ "
ORDER
V15 by the court below permittm g the p1ai1:1tifi’to
ugza on the suit schedule property menfioning the
_f;J’e2_1§.£:1;éV1’3;<:y'<3ft11e suit in respect of the same is challenged in this
— fiefifion.
W
WP 6037/2008
3
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners who axe defendants 2
to 4 in the court below submits that the court belewe has
granted an cider of status quo 01:1 a memo the
defendants and therefore there was no need for
1303111 on the suit site mentioning tha’t the ei’£e:’¢Wéx3
under litigation. He submits that suei1.Va:;;fi§ei4mié;si§§u.f32:;s”
unwarranted as it has affected’dthé~..e€.teem.__a;ad1 of the V
defendants. He also submits thet..th0ugh t}:1eI9e–§sA order by
the court directing the status quo, the
3. Whatever be ofihe petitioners, 1 do not
find any the’ the court below so %to
Warrant wfit jurisdiction. The permission
below is in aid of the order passed ditecmlg
bath A’5C’.tV’2 statusquo. Thexvdom, there beim
fio merit iI1._thiss\x2riI:’~’pet’fiion, the same is dismissed.
sal-
Iudqe