IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAEOTRE DATED THIS THE 8" DAY OF SEPTEMBER". BEFORE 2 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.I;'VlI§Nl3)...2O9e1:48/éO._iO (cl{M,._¢,PC) R " BETWEEN: A 3 V Vi ll Sri B.H. Ramesh, _ _ S/O. late Hanumanthegowda, T, Aged about 52 years, I ' " R/O. Ka|EedevaraVpura,"""--If 1 ., ChickmagalgII*'T,.a>l'uk D§strict;. ~~~~ Q' PETITIONER (By sn D.'C..jaVgad.eshv,"lA§|'v.) ' AND: V' M 4 1 .. «}:,SVri 'l< . S.AVh ri-egVO_yycia , S/0. late Shivazmmana Devegowda, I _Agved, a.b"Ou__t 56 years, ' . R,/O..._,A'lla'm,_rsura village, '--..,Chick'_ma,ga|ur Taluk & District. Shit'. l<4'..VL.Savithramma, W,/O; late Gangadhar Gowda, " *=._,Aged about 55 years, HR/O. V.Eradagere village, Kadur Taluk, Chickmagalur District. RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. M.C.Jayakirthi, Adv.)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 22,6115-nld-‘.227
of the Constitution of India praying to quaVsh_’th’eJjord,er
dated 14.8.2009, made on I.A.No.2, in O.Sé_No’.”i.?,3/2-Q09,
vide Annexure —- D, by the Learned Civil ‘Judge-.(Jr.Dn.)”–.._
Chickmagalur and the order dated 16.’1″.’2-Q10″m’ade._Vinc’
M.A.20/O9 vide Annexure — F by the Learned”tiiyiijudge —
(Sr.Dn) Chickmagaiur as the, same ‘are. “‘-ilieg:a.l_& ‘aiiid
unsustainable in iaw and consequently allow. I’;A;2 file-d, by
the petitioner in 0.s.No.173/_09, ‘U/O XX)<'I'Xi..;P_.uVle & 2*
read with 151 of CPC vide Arinexure —.. the file of the
Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Chickmagaiiir as prayed for
therein. —
This petition coming onffoivr prélimiinary hearing in ‘B’
group, this day the Court ma.d_e:Vthe~~foilowi–ng:
,V’iVifieti’tioijer i?g_’ti~.e’ifiiaintirri’Vi’h o.s.173/2009 on the file
of the3CiviiJtid’g.e{‘.{J’r~;.i§’n4,,~), Chikmagaiore. Respondents
are d_,efenldan:ts’ in’ the said suit. Reiief prayed in the suit is
Ape.rmajneri–t._injunction. I.A.2 was filed seeking an order of
“i,:,e_mpo_”i’a_Ary’li’inj’u.nction. An ad interim exparte order was
‘passed’. .’i.fieFendants appeared and filed written statement
as well’; as objections to I.A.2. The Trial Court upon
‘consideration of the matter, rejected I.A.2. Aggrieved, the
‘plaintiff filed Miscellaneous Appeal, which upon
consideration, was found to be devoid of merit and was
/
r
seek appropriate order to protect the ‘peiti4tio.Vner’s
possession and enjoyment of the suit pro:p’e’i=ty:—–!:i_nr.-__the
pending appeai i.e., R.A.122/200$”.
4. In view of the submissi_o:i~:–_iVrriade’_.g§y~the
counsei, it is unnecessary to ‘co’n*sigd’eriV”the”‘grounds
raised in the writ petition aig’ain_st’VVthe impu’gne”d judgment
and order. The pet4iti%o_n’ers-«is::at_.’A:iii’perty’»._to seek reiief in
R.A.122/20_O8–;;: –Thef;AVres’pgondVent:s_ the right to take
a p p r_op–rt|.at:e«i_d’e;fe§me 1 ea m-attegr.
AWVri’t gpetiVt_io’n’ disposed of accordingly.
Iziégié