High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.D.Madegowda vs M/S Skanray Technologies on 31 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri.D.Madegowda vs M/S Skanray Technologies on 31 July, 2009
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
1

 

TAKA HSGH COB

m um man comer op' KARHATAKA AT BAHGAIXDRE
DATED TI-IIS THE am ms: or % 
THE HOWBLE m.  3; 

WRIT PETITION Nc2,,2%142'o c2£*  

BETHEEN:

1 sR1.n.MAnEc<:mrr;AA 
£Ex.M.L.C.3 a _ .
AGED 5': YEARS _   '
RrAT_ncoa HG. Sfig 1STf%AIMfROAD
am i_DoI2B?;THAs'».H4!z*':IAHG0i€1JA 

    
H2sofiE+57cc16'€;~'"' 5

2.  sax ~rs.§sAvgsa'wm~. %
 ASE!)  ~
j Ls/at: £1 '2§AD.§:'.'G0'E'Q3i"<. 
* R;#2.'3~ pom 'rm-»..3'§. 13'? MAIN germ
_ K13HE!AR.1:QI;*.i°AL 
'T --.HY30R;3f570G15

  y....W.. rnvrf uwuru 05 KAWMAM mm»: mum or m}Z;;;

* _ 3".  fS'R._I'*.$URiESH xzmaa. JAIR
  ~._A::;:;a£1--s YEARS
'  S..{'O smyam mung JAIN

RJ}fi'§',1N9. 1090, VISTRIUVARDI-EAN R09
.{.?5{A§éiAfiAJA£URAM
"'§{£YS0RE~~5'?GGG3

* rs: sax sazvarma
 Asian 49 'mans
sxo mm mnssowm
26'?!-I imam, conromwon, :4 c: c
R.A'I' 140.220, END STAGE,
sssammm mzsaa, I-rssam.
HYSORE-570015

5. SR1 KLIlfiAR GOVDA
AGED 45 YERRS



 

«,5 "Him ccii

 ........\. W mnnlvntflnfl I-nun come? or 2<AmAm«m HSGH comm 0% mmami

S/G SHIVANNA
MA? 36395 No.143,
mmaaaxoypnn
MYSoRE~57GG16

SR1 SHIVP: MADI-11}

AGED 55 mas «  ;  " 
sic; caxmmmza, KIN!' r;To9n'm.««.41;'A,   A
13'1" MAIN, 3313 (moss, '¢3AR?&DI' BEEm_,'  
xusmanxozopan    ~ ~
MYSORE -- 5?O016.7-_

sax MA1~fE$H

AGED 35 YEARS

CABLE aesnmon .  
3/*0 snxvarmag " KIA'? Won L:~zc,1:m
ST'!-I MAIN, HEBBAL. 1.S'§':S'FFs13Ev._f _

MY3ORE+5?G01€""w 

sax.    
AGED _:-59     '-
5/can GAE; nzxnflmewm

HOS8.' .5'3?S'EI:rI, 'KU§%fi2~';B.K{}PPAh

 MYS0VR.E_-?5'V?£).C!16V"=._V' " 

SH? "smfi 

%   AGED ,_5G-'FEARS 

' axe L.A2?.g'ao3.sGowr:A, vassznsw,

 ;¢_A1-Lswvmmz sr-fiu<:'*:"I, Rik'? noon NO.211

LZQIGAZANA mas, mm NAYAKA mean

'A "  _ '*-.1_;Lr.sm.aga;{:oPPA:., HYEQRE-57G016

'K1'é:'.' 73%;-"'j_ if :4 skim?
 A.;za;.a:2 59 YEARS

" .. 'axe mnnaxaazsowm

"€11.

=..!?ifA'I" D009. 310.367

KUEEARKOPFAL,
MYSQRE~5?3016

SR1 Ufifififi

AQEB 32 YERRS

8X0 CHRL3VEGGN¥A
MRNGHEGGWQANAKGP PA L
MYSORE~§?B316



am: comm @:%'i%.A"§'§§eA¥A"KA e-mm mu

_.__ .. . ....... -vuu- ur RHKEVHIMKP HIGH COURT OF KARNA?fl.W2« M

4

ORQER

The petitioners have challenged  

11.62%? (Atmexurtz-A) passed by  
Aadmonaz cm Judge (Jr. in 

o.s.no.aa7/2009.

S2. The  __filéd._.;hefi Asxxitfigaizmst thc

petitioners seeking'  the 'xx 5-,figf  injunction

  of the industrial'
zmjidnzg  v  's§§i1£§§iu1§ j§ifiperty. On the service of
notésg the  I .A.No.4 inw.-ldng Order VII

R1314: L1i'{t':'~.'.3._ :'>f  the rejecting: of the plaint. The

 .  4, M ':%,';%;~,¢:m. byiumm, dated 1 1.5.2009 rejected the
      

 ..   Ayesmd by the: rejcctian srder, this

VA 5  in instituted.

4». 81-i B.S.1~Iaga1-aj, the km-ned counsel for the
petitioners submia that the plot allotted tn the
respondent is fives;-ed for a park. His next

mu

&TAKA HiGH CGU

_. I’¥I1i.§?F’ mum us KARNATAKA mew comm 05 mm

5

submisaion is that ta plat falls within tlzmflcbbal
tank bed area. Therefore, he submits “plat

ought mt to have been allotted to

all. He: further subm.ita. iv

Liugan’ ‘on (P.I.L.) 13 fbarr.

Daria’ ion Bench of this allotment

of the plot to the 1′ » ‘

5- fejcc’-‘M mNo.4,
bar to file the suit for
* Vm’v in rmpect of the plot in
V fiphold the under of the Trial
canncst be held to be at fault

A I.A.No.4=

j_ T’-1.’6vI eVt>t findmg’ any 1n.firm1′ ‘ty 91?’ perversity or
;_ error in this artist in quwtion, I refuse to

in the matter.

7′. At thisjuncturc, Sri Nagaraj rcquesm that
liberty be wzwd to the petitioners eitltuar ta file a

pubic itztazmt petimbn 61″ suit or to sack the
528%

Vu\l\nII\’ ur mwmmm mam Luuifl or ¥<ARNM"M(A s~m7;r-e 59%: M xmmmmm HIGH C<){J

. _ AA #égAJ_A%%jA

6
petitioners’ imkradmcnt in the public:

interest: litiwtiom. The pctitisncrs

mnercise the liberty, ifit is otherwise

dosoinlaw.

3; Subject to writ

petition E as 7cc3_t«s.;_

% 1 Sd/-7»
Iudgé