Sri K Shankar Pani vs Shivashankar on 6 December, 2010

.....x

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6'?" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010 

BEFORE}

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAvA19sAL;i'e;*----   .

MISC.CVL. No.9506/_2Q1O& ~~f'- 'V
MISC.CVL.N'o.9505v}520:i'G .. 3 '
IN R.P'.A.No. 1 15Qz;2o10" i'-{NJ} V  "
BETWEEN: 'L V
Sri.K.Shankar Pani,
S/0.N.Kannappa,      
Aged about 70 years.   _    '  l_;.".APPELLANT

{By Sri.P.KrishnaP§é3        
Sri.BhanU;; P1"é\Sa(l;'§f3gdv§--<3\\.,,.  "  V '

AND:

I . Shivasha11keu*-. 
S/0.Sidda;'an1, V-

   ye'éu's,.. ..... 

éi':_g:1 ' an'oihe1é.__ ' ' a  V ._ .. RESPONDENTS

Mi4’Se.iC’)§{1.§)506/2010 is filed under Order 41 Rule 5

H :”.vi’44/”~vE.’:”_’~:eVc>e._.I5lef CPC praying to stay the operation of the impugned

& decree made by the learned 42*” Addl. City Civil &
._SeSsie;ns Judge at Bangalore, in O.S.N0.629O/2005 di..8.4.2010.

‘ peniding disposal of the appeal.

Misc.Cvl.9505/2010 is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 82 2
r/w.Sec.l51 of CPC. praying to pass an order of tern_po1’ary
injunction restraining the respondents. their agents orvgaanybody

claiming through or under them from in any way interfer’ing “or

from putting up any kind of construction over the.-Agstzii:_sCh{edil’§e

property. pending disposal of the appeal. V b

These cases coming on for orders,”i«this’_’dayfthe Conitmade

the following:–

” 2
Heard on MisctCvl.95OE3;i»QO’1(j;~ zjzinlllapplication filed
by the appellant_fo1§~>.y nldgment and Decree.

This is The suit of the plaintiff is

dismissed. Under -stich Acirci,:.rnstances. question of staying the

V.iri1pugnVT3d<. gJ_udgment"«.a_._ndv Decree does not arise. Hence,

0.18 rejected.

‘Heard Von’li:§{iisc.CVl.95O5/201.0. This is an application filed

the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying

for}:/;”.I’ liestraining the 1’esponde 1 interfering or putting up

any kind of construction over the suit schedule property. The

application is annexed with affidavit of the appellant.

The appellants suit came to be dismissed

Judgment and Decree dated 08.04.2010. E’-I3o’.”1.,

framed on the point. visa. “Whether the’! p1ainti:;”f”*pr6yes

the institution of the suit, the deifendants—-Aha.ve er1c–r.oaeliediu.pon’VVup

the suit schedule property and n1adeT’eonstrueti6n–V-iofdiieornpound
wall on the eastern and westerrl sideei schedudlve property
i11ega11y?”, the Trial Court has in the negative.

In the affidavit, ther’e\i1gV:-.nQ Ldglaterial’«.t§~»d’ShQW1:iVfthat the defendants

are attemptin’g’te uiAV1*3;;terie:ie~With’peaeefu1’possession and enjoyment.

of the suit “scheduleVprope-rty;._ “Under such Circumstances, no

prirna faeie caseisdmade__ot;ttbitoagrant T.i as prayed for.

V’ _ -l\:/£isC.Cv1x.’95’85/2010 is rejected for the present.
. ‘ =. r

sd/-3
Tudgé

0; bnV* ” ‘fl “‘0 . . mx