ma 'rm-3 HIGH Coum' OF KARNATAKA A"I'
1)A'I'l£D T313 THE am my oh' SEPTEMBER' _
BEFORE ._ ;_;}i 1 "
BETWE-JEN ' " * *
Sn'. Ramachandra Gupia,
S/CLAN Sheshadri Shett_y';~A. . ,
Aged 60 years, Door No.5, ' * A} V '
Behiz1dS0i}d Conservatioyy" 1' =
Centm, Agricultuiffl Dcp:;1rtInc:1t,_
O 'I'R0ad, 'V " ..Petitioner
(By Sri Adxgg
AND: L % _
an '1' H _
S / of!' 'vHa1"a1appa;
" _____
' ' . _ R/@,\I4-i'emé:V'Ni1a;»fa,
'£316 :M"&hj1,'=3fd _'Li%;jo3s,
isnh" . 'daSa1:a'ga_r,. . V
'i'az'ikéi'c 'i'9WffL ..Respondcnt
'(I-§y Sri .HVV'I*§f,a.1V1tharaja, Adv.)
Vjfius Misc.Cvl. is filed under order 39 Rune 1 85 2
._ __To1""..CE'{3, praying to pass an onder of injunction
Vfestérairxixzg the respondent either from alienating,
--. encumbe1'ing or creating third party interest on the
' A . jfschedule property.
This Misc. CV1. coming on for admission this day,
the Court passed the foliowing:
§Qv
ORDER
Heard regarding miscellaneous applic~ation_””.;fi_led
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of
respondent has not filed any ob_;:i’ect:iogns.””.o_ ‘: 4. ‘ ‘ R 4
2. Learned counsel for petitioner: that’
there is urgency as __the –tR decree holder
having obtained a deeldgof purporting
to be in tennsofvjthe No.83/1996 is
now in question.
3. ‘thevdecree and the proceedings in
Executiovnl*Jo.’5€%O/ it clear that the petitioner
hasggjnoti.been”notiiied: of the proceedings of the execution
theiigdeicrvee in OS No.83/1996 has been executed
th’roughR”_tvhe~i,.Court Commissioner. It is noticed that
there ‘compliance of provision of Order XXI Rule 34
in executing the deed of sale. In the
“Circumstances. the petitioner has made out a prima
it tmflaeie case for grant of an ad-interim order as sought for.
(3%
Hence, Misc. Cv1.No.1240/2010 is allowed veht1’e.there
shall be an order of injunction as prajfed s.,1__nt_il
further orders.
Even though the respo1’id_eii_tA”i–
represented, the petitiorieriist»difectedato:
the provision of Ordeij 39 Ru’ie’vt_3{e)’*o_f
. . t . ‘i