Smt Jayarathna vs Smt Varadamma on 17 September, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE ._

§ DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009' A 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHoI:'A13f_ H1NCH:S13:R1"~V:: ~ _  ''

WRIT pE'rm0N No.27349/2009 {Gnqéicficj     7

BETWEEN:

1

SMT. JAYARAT1-{NA  
D/O LATE K.V. VENKATE.SI-I MUR'I'},jIY 
W/O KI-IARISH KUMAR   ;  .   
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS    ;
R/AT KAGGALIPURA VILL..AC_rE. '
UTTARAHALLI H4031;  V - 
BANGALORE SoUf;m~1V'1*ALU2«; '"

SMT. SAVITHA " A  '_  
D/O LATE-~K,V;A_vENKA'fE.SH 
AGED ABOUT'2§   -
R/AT KAGGAL1PURAV1LLAS--E' '
UTTARAHALLI HQBL1' .   "
BANGALORE; SOUTH TAi.UE{

.  'V     PETITEONERS

 «  :;(BY--SRI 1\)r.'K;"'SANDEEP, ADVOCATE}


D /OLATE VENKATADRAPPA

. _' ' .,AGED 'ABOUT 66 YEARS

._ '7.'

._  D./'D-LATE VENKATADRAPPA
  AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

 SMT. SUSHILAMMA

D/ O LATE VENKATADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS



4 K V KUMAR
D / O LATE VENKATADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

5 SIVIT. SHASHIKALA
D/ O LATE VENKATADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEAR

6 SMT. SUMANGALA
D / O LATE VENKATADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT KAGGALIPURA VI;
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI _  
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

7 RSHANKRAPPA   «

S/0 LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPAV» '
AGEDAB0UT54~YE.ARs; _    :
No.31, KENcriANAjR'A_':.I,1-.  _  " 
RAJARAJES;HwAR1-  _ _  ' '
BANGALORE»: 563039'   ., 

8 R.V.VE;NKA'1"AI?.i?A_«  _  _ --
S /0 LATE RV; VENI{_ATAP.1?A- '
AGED ABOUT 55 ~ " 
No.132, 6THCROSS_ g " 
5TH MAIN, PA1:>MANABH.ANAGAR

 _ BANGALORE -- 560 070,

9  R; LOKESH -REDDY

 __S7'Q_ 'RAMALAR..S_R;'::DDY
AGED A};~3c>_m'V  YEARS
KONANAKUNTE CROSS

_ KANAKARURA ROAD
',3i3ANGALC;.RE «M 560 062  RESPONDENTS

A  PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
' RECORDS IN OS No.1022/2009 FROM THE FILE 01? THE

VIINID ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

I  - ...AT'BANGAL0RE, AND ETC.

TIIIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

I HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:



ORDER

The petitioners’ grievance is that the _

granted an exparte temporary injunction order. » ‘if.

2. The impugned order passed

discretionary order. No interfereiice ._snc_h «Vcrders is
warranted in exercise of th’e~..V_poWe’r’ un§.ieVr’-..Artic1’eV”i227 of the
Constitution of India. The ends be met by my

directing the Trial (3o’n._rt’ -to expeditiously as

possibie and in .outcr”iimit of 10 days from.

the date of the of the today’s
order, provided already served with
the notice on I..:’…No.I stiitivsurnmons issued by the
Trial ‘V .:, V …… ..

Petit:¢ni’isd:é,y;p.éed of accordingly. No order as to

Sd/*
Judge

bvri ”