IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED was THE sth DAY 01? JUNE 2003 f ~ : :' .
'rm: HONBLE MR.JUsrIcE._u.B3'fi.AP:*5
W.P. No.13o7(2o0é
Between:
Smt. Mmtxiakkayamma,
W/o.latc Kuguru
Aged about 50 years, -
R] a. Kafigenahafii Village;
Jala Hobli, Yekehanka: V
Bangalore 1'1<::xJth:'['_:::lu.is:__. 3; ..
BEFORE
V PETITEONER
(By Sri.A«Nagai?njap1§aiei.'T»'ix:1v¢}:'<.
AND :
3/ c::~,1af*cA *
about 4!) yams;
'v _ 2% S1 o.«Vé::1'ka_ta$ham%
§1bdut'38 years,
" \' . ' L .93?-enkatashamappa,
about 32 years,
L,/'
5. Smt.Vasanth,
S] o.Venkntashamappa,
Aged about 3'2 years,
6. Sri. Vcnkatesh,
S] cmvenkatashamappa,
Aged about 38 years,
7. Sriffhimmamju,
S,' o.Vcnm
Aged about 34 years,'
8. Sriflhinnappa,
S[o.1ate Poojappa,
Aged about ypumfs,
9. "
S] o.
Aged "
10. %
S/o.C V ' «_
Agcdaho'u§*25 I
11.; % "
V " ..... V'
. Agpd abo;ztv6.1_y:::ars.
S
Aged a7bouf4O years,
.8/a,T
about 35_ycars,
~ - 14. . Sri.Mu:man3tma' ' ppa.
S/odatc Poojappa,
Aged about 59 yawn,
W,
All are r/aliattigenhalli Village,
Jain Hobli, Yclahanka Post,
Bangalore North Taluk.
15. Sri.'I'.Su:xesh,
S[o.Th.irumalappa,
Aged about 33 yeaxs,
R/a.Kat1igenahaI1i Village,
Jada Hobli, Yelhanka Pest,
Banylore North Taluk.
15. S1i.14o}canat1:R£ii_I1;'«-- ;
S/0.1.912 K.V ; "
Aged abo-ut44years, v_
R]a.No.3, _ - '
R.'£'.Nagar Post; 'N:sT('.o1on3r, _
Bangalore-;55{3.'03_2_;;'. - _; r '
-;-V-T
:ThiS"!!ffit filed u/A226 a. 227 of the
Conatitutisn. cf can for the entin: rcoonls
and issue await, 'o1iler'in'Lh4e--- nature of oertiorari in qnashing
the impugned" dt.4-1~2008 on I.A.No.6 in
O.S.No.14'2,f200?' by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) as
JMEC; Vida: Annex.G.
P. oemmg' on for pzehnnnary' ' Ileana' g this day,
' «#11:: following:
ORDER
1 , In “this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
‘ “‘tV1ie”{k>nstitufi0n of India, the petitioner has called in
“”(iuesfion the order dated 4–l-2008 Esed by the trial
Court in O.S.No. 142/ 2007 on !.A.No.6.
2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.6 under Section 151
of C.P.C., praying for Police protection. The
has rejected the application on the
petitioner has failed to show that the
violated the order.
3. Awieved by 2 L’
filed this writ petition.
4. The petmtmne” 1*
contended wa’ ‘s not jusnfied’ in
rejecting the a§p3jcae¢n., submitted that the
x’espo;1deIv1.*.::i§;.’ éithe injunction order and
thefefore; the-. was not justified in rejecting
therefore, submitted that the
_ coonot be sustained in law.
‘I tflave carefully considered the submissions
V by”; the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not
any merit in his submission.
6. It is relevant to note, the appficatrioiz i_sV.__for
police protection. It is allged in the
respondents are putting up =
substantiate that, the
anything. Therefore, me’:r:g1 fihef %
application. I do ‘ty in the
order in my
considered” xiaez-is in this writ pccimn
and
Sd/-in
‘-3
Judge