M.F'.A.NO.9-441 [2010
& IVHSC.CVL.22454/2010
INTTHEHflfliCOURT(M?KARNNflMULATBANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2:}'Io:f«_ "--,_
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
1v:.F.A.No.9441/2015- .. 3
AND MIsc.cvL,_2;2454 /2,010
BETWEEN
1 SR} D DIGAE\/IBARNz'iT..F_I
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O SR1 s DUNGARNATH
R/OF GARUDACHARP._AL_YA '
MAHADEVAPUPA VILLAGE: _ . ._
KRPURAM "
BANGALOFEE é3O.UTH.T.ALUK A '
[AC'1UA{,LY=P<,_(OF "No.57 VA . '
CAR S'.FRE.ET,'«U,1,SOOP,_ * "
BA1\fGALQI7{E 56:9' 008;, "
2 SRISADA g "
[ACTUAL KNOwN"As»-- P SADHASHIVAM}
F'ATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
RES£?ONDE1'-.TT_'[SR1 PANCHAKSHARAM}
AGED A_BOUT"43._;zEARs
_ '"R/ OF' GARUDACHARPALYA
» _ MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE
' K'I?.._PUFOSAL OE"fmE= ABOVE APPEAL.
MFAAIND MISC.C\/L. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
* "DAY. '*I'HE COURT DELIVERED IHE FOLLOWING:
M.F.A.No.9441 [2010
<31 MISC.CVL.2245-4/2010
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the defendants is direetedi..agatiiistiv’
an interlocutory Order dated 30.9.2010 pass??? ijhté’
trial Court namely the Court of the 0Addim;;air%%
Civil Judge, Bangalore in the suit it
allowing I.A.No.1 filed by the'”oi:ainti{f” 39
Rules 1 and 2 of the*WQ&PC anflorvder of
ad–interim injunction para 12 of
the order to be:.in’:i’oifce of months from
the date of V
2. I ‘Counsel appearing for the
parties and ~pe1’us’e”d the order.
oixp’ara’–°12 of the impugned order would
No.1 /defendant No.1 has admitted
that ‘the plaintiifftiis in possession of the suit property. On
the faetsvvdof the case, in my opinion, the discretion
by the trial Court in granting the order of
V’ ..__’ad-interim injunction in favour of the
iv”.,_yd’respondenbplaintifi Cannot: be said to be arbitrary or
M.F.A.N0.944l {Z010
8: M£SC.CVL.22454/2010
capricious to warrant interference in appeal. No gr’0_u;r1d
to admit the appeal. The appeal is
dismissed. In View of dismissal of th–r: V’
Misc.Cv1.22454/2010 filed for int§:1*iz11..sta§} V
dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.