IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALi5:R»E
DATED THIS THE ITFH DAY OF an LY 2993′ ”
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MRS.JUS’FICE:’MANJ’UL}A
AND .
THE HON’BLE MR.JUS’I’EC_E K.N;I<ESHAvAIx*AI'2AYAi\I.A' "
W.A.NO.224Q._/F209? "(LRI *
BETWEEN:
1 SMT RAJESHWARI ‘BA! ‘
D/O. LATE SUNDARBAIA _ I
AGED ABC)U.’__I’ s8’YEA:~2jS_
R/AT ‘*SRli’HDHI”3-NO.i4, _
1 1TH w CFEIQSS; Swl-MMINS POOL EXT
MALLESIIVARAM, I:’3Af:~:GAIoRv,S’: 560003.
_, ‘I I ” ” I APPELLANT
(By sis; R1 rIAIé;ASISI§&IIA<AIiafuARTIIY, ADV.)
éE.D_;
sTATI¥3’o– ——– –KARNATAKA
._ REP. _BY_ ITS SECRETARY
” TS ‘TI-_I’IE GOVERNMENT
A’nS:PARTMSNT OF REVENUE
2 M.s.–;SI1I=LDING
AMEBEKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE.
.. TIIE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
_ M.-‘RAMANAGARAM SUB DIVISION
RAMANAGARAM
RAMANAGARAM DiS’FRIC’I’.
3 SR1 KENCHAUKH
S] O. KENCHAMUTHAIAH
*@
AGED ABOU T60 YEARS
R/AT YELACHAWADI VILLAGE
MARALWADI mam,
KANAKAPURA TALUK –
EANGALQRE RURAL DISTRICT. _ ‘– e-
RESPQ_ND.ENTS %
(By S:ri.M.NAR’AYANAPPA, AGA FOR R1 8.-,._2″AND– 4- _ ”
SRI.D.JAYARAMAIAH, ADV. FOR R~3}_f* . ‘ e
THIS WRIT APPEAIQ-5f1LEti~..’i;,Is ..?r1-iE–.Vf
KARNATAKA HIGH comm’ ACfT,:PRAYIl5¥t’:r. SET ASIDE
THE’. ORBER Passe; 3.2%” — WRIT “F’E’I’I’I’IGN
N0.77′?4/ 2007 omen Ge”/T1o{2oo7.””- jg * M
THIS w..A..j¢oM:;§’o’o:§} ‘RRELEEEINARY HEARING
THIS SAY, % 1;t4ust4;R.a__&:4;.=v’A, J;’,’ DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING; ‘ ‘
‘A “(§M}3l\FI’
V_Respon<1ei1tV';.No:_3 "'fierein filed W.P.No.7774/2007
" jzhe em;-;:«or the KAT aflowing the appeal of the
V'
' the said Writ Petition, on 26.6.2007, the
.'eV.'v'1ea.r§1ee¥.V"".S.i11gIe Judge granted an order of status~quo.
e.'_'}*;_Vfte;'e*"éappeaz."ance, the appellant filed ¥.A.No.*2/200'? for
the interim order. By order dated 8.10.2007, the
learned Single Judge has rejected the said application on
9@.
_ 3
the ground that there are no grounds to vacate the interim
order. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant
this appeal interaiia contending that the _
Judge has rejected the app1icah”er1A}:§itl1or:t’&ssigr1irjg–maxi? ‘*
reasons as such, it is bad iri law.
3. We have perused the__’1’ejco1’£is. j’i’he
Judge While rejecting the has
directed posting of .hcarin_g. For the
purpose of com-iderir1g’ti1c– “viacatixlg interim
order, the the merits of the
case the’express opinion one Way or the
other amount of prejudice to the
parties. hearing on this application, probably
1% f Judge has felt that the matter itself
cofiiri on merits. Therefore, he has held that
there ‘£10 §I’O&fld for vacating the interim order.
V * Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the °ca.:~:-e, We see no grounds to interfere with the
‘”ir1ter10cutoIy order of the leamed Single Judge. The
appellant is at liberty to move the learned Single Judge rotgfj.
listing the matter for final hearing at an early date. ‘ ‘ H’ V
5. With this observation, the appea;1»wis_r¢jeC”t駒;*: