High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Roopa W/O Gopalakrishna vs Smt Sowbhagya W/O K … on 18 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Roopa W/O Gopalakrishna vs Smt Sowbhagya W/O K … on 18 June, 2008
Author: H.G.Ramesh
M.F'.A.N0.9710/2007

1!! mm mm: coum or mnnaurm AT naxeamxzgl:
narrnn 11-113 mm 13%! DAY 01? auras 2003 V M
nmronm % L 
mm norrnm m-z...ms'r1cm H.e.RAmE:-:3;   %
M.F.A. 140.9710/2097  2   %
nmwnmc: ' "
1 SMT ROOPA
W/0 GOPALAKRISHNA   '
AGED 25 YEARS, #155,  "
«rrrr CROSS, H MAIN, '-- --

BOVIPALYA, MAHALAKs}§T:vi:1'>u,§2m,     % .
E8ANGALORE~8£$.  , V' = 'APPELIANF

(BY SR1 T sEsHAGng:1'RAd_, ADVQ')    'V

AND:

1 smf sowamevpg'   _ -
W/QK crLaNNA(-3AN£3A1AH--- '
AGED-54«YEA«RS',V   " 
R/A'I'.NO.'?'38, I"*F" (moss,
am STAGE, em I3LO€;'§K;<15'1'l'I MAIN,
BASAVESHWASQANAGAR,
mNGAL0RE~?9._ _  RESPONDENT

(13Y_ £”>1’~2¥ T2; $i;NDAREsHA, ADV.)

V ‘«T§~i§Sv-: IviFA:F!iLED U/ORDER 43 RULE Mr} OF CPC.

AGA1’N§F’ THE ‘O:i?D’ER DATED 16/’7/07 PASSED ON I.A.N0.4 iN

O.S.NO…’5766f~0f>}ON THE FILE OF THE xxv ADDL.CITY CIVIL

JUDGE,” BANGALORE CITY {CCI-{-23}, DISMISSING £.A.NO.4

_. _T ‘–«.._.uF’I¥,.ED Uiozznam 39 RULE 1 AND 2 FOR AD–m*rERzM
” – . A’1′–*F,M.PORARi” §NJUNC.’.’I’ION.

” V’ APPEAL COMiNG ON FOR ADM§SS§ON, THIS DAY,

–#z%}~iE’g:oUR’r DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

M.F.A.NO.97’1G/2097

JUDGQENI

This appeal by the plaintiff is directed

interlocutory order dated 16.7.2007 passed

court — the Court of the XXV

Judge, Bangalore in the suit

dismissing her application-I;A{I\’o,4 flied

39 Rules 1 & 2 r/W Section 151-ofv–the_CPC”fcr.g1*dnt of
an order of temporarjf ‘restrain the
defendant from on the

plaint ‘B’i351_l_t}1e_:disposa1 of the suit.

2. counsel appearing

for the that the appeal may be

disposed of U the respondent herein to

:’&ste;t2x1s~quo in respect of the plaint ‘B’

till the disposal of the suit. He also

_prays”—forv–..d difection to the trial court to dispose of the

W ept_expe”ditious1y. However, Sri D.R.SuI1daresha,.

counsel appearing for the respondent,

Vt jigsupports the impugned order and claims that as on

Wy

M.F’.A.NC}.9710/C2007

today, the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is in possession

of the respondent.

3. Having regard to the facts of the case ii

suit is stated to be at the

respondent to maintain status–_quo4″i1j’–;«csp¢{:t’_ E1163

plaint ‘B’ scheduie property till {iii
The trial court is directeti”~to
six months from the V of a
copy of this ‘~

The the above terms
in “iz}:_1131:g[1ed herein.

sssss Judge