IN THE HIGH comm op KARNATAKA AT sA:a(§AL§R%';L'* A'
DATED THIS THE 0380 DAY oF%%jNaVE§a:§3E%R2koQ3
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MR. .5£I::STiCEAN.ANA;}JV1§5"':._ ""
M.F.A.NO._1.449 Q§{2oe7 1cP<:;%
BETWEEN :
1 Sm' vIsHAuxKsHIfe'AJLI." . ..
w/0 sR1;&'$IDfDAv¥EE;RA.?PA«. 'V ____ H
as YRs,..re/o;NQV9.,3.MA:N
GANDHI 2~.:AeA'r<*;..TU'MK£ii?.__ 'Q ' APPELLANT
(By Sri: R B s_ADAs3;vAP?A, A'D'.tOCA'I'E)
AND :
1 smfaxxammzum .
D/o."--s_Ri. BEERAPPA
12;A*r.N'o. 9,.2,re13 0.12033,
4 ;'m:.:v:1~.m:~na..2:;.aL:.1,
'RE--40
é 2 's29f§'i*..«?iSSi1;§3~.
W/0 3&1' 'E3INCuARAPPA
30 YRS,=_R/O BETTANAHALLI VILLAGE
'-- DEVARAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL RESPONDENTS
__(By sr:~m;:>uB:nR1 RAGHAVENDRA RAO, sR.<:oUNsEL FOR
3.:-5.,-__a ‘P fNDUSHEKAR mg 92 : Sri.’]’.SESHAGIRI mo FOR R4}
” ” Ema F¥LED UIORDER 43 RULE Hr) OF CFC, AGMNSI’ THE
– ORBER DATED 8/12/06 PASSED on I.A.NO.’2a :1»:
O.§S.NO.T3315/88 ON THE FILE 0? THE VII ADI}L.CfT”Y CIVIL
“JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-19), REJECTING I.A.NO.2a FILED
V’ U/ORDER 39 RULE 52 OF’ CPC FOR AD INTERIM EXPARTE
TEMPORARY IBUUNCTION.
This appeal, coming on for hearing, this day, the
Court, dclivcrcd the following:
3. The appeal is dismissed. The 3″‘
xestrained from alienating or
schedule property pending
said suit was instituted in 1938; the
learned trial judge snaa& t’1 1e suit,
in any event not later than’ V the date of
receipt of a cqpyfqf order. V.
5._ …. for plaintiff would
sumit:’~.,th.ai: v »’ é ‘” -sulisequent developments
plaitltiif ‘ ‘amend the plaint to seek
‘ is so advised he can file
amend the fiaint to seek appropriate
% Iudge
relie’;-*
Sd/-v