m mm mm mom or numurrnu A1′
nxmn mm ‘rim 8″ my or Arm. 2003 S f ~
W.P.NO.5266/2008
mm nonm nmrmmcn:
BETWEEN:
1
$221 THEMMARAYAPPA
s/0 LAKKUR BAYANKA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 5
SR1 MUNIYAPPA V
s/0 SR1 THIM!e€ARAYA’i’?A
AGED ABOUT” «$_7jYEA}_2S Z: _
SR: NAR@.?é;1§A§w;é;mj_V–.A_,. _ ‘
s/o sR1*1jH:MmARA’!A.PPA ._ ” ‘
AGED%.As_A< 3m'
Psmfiofiaiés' 3 'Al§ E'*RiO N0. 1522
MARUTH! NA€3AR.fKOGI-LU' reom
vsmsmmm
BANGALORE' – ~ PE'l'I'I'IONERS
— .93? ski-is A__ RA_V{R1’SJ’.’
“%Jsr§1*’té’}v§=;N:l;1×1#*EswAIe1 BAI
A we saw aaomma
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RE? 3? HER (3 P A HOLDER
A x SR! VRAGENDRA
A310 YELLUSSA
H ” .A_GED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O NO 22, BVK IYENGAR ROAD CROSS
RESPONBENI’
MAmKARJUNA TEMPLE STREET
BANGALORE – 560 053
THIS WRIT PE’I’i’i’!ON FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 86
227 OF’ THE CONSITIUTTON OF IND!A PRAYING TO
W.P.N0.5266/2008
QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT. 11.3.2008 ON I.A.NO.5_!.N
O.S.N0.789/2006 PASSED 8′! THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
(JR.DN.), BANGALORE RURAL AT BANGALORE VIBE .
THIS mrmon comm on FOR pREL$i§iirdiL:zfr–%T’
HEARING THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWH_§lG: –
This writ petition by mg: demadazjts ‘ %
against an interlocutmy
(Annexure-A) passed mm: of
the Principal :1 cm: Rural
District. Bangaim % : #iIit” é:i::1 i:«”‘0.S;AEo.789/QCD6
allowing A mod by the
seeking stone slabs and the
comP0IF3f1″ ,V s the road which is
in the rough sketch annexed
direct the petitioners/dc;fcndants
to péy”4oosts’ of the same.
heard the learned oounsei appearing for
}pctitioncrs and perused the impugned order at
It is relevant to refer to the folhwmg
\W/
W.P.NO.5’J66f2008
reasoningofthctr1aICom’tinallowi:ngtheappIimfio;1§
I.A.NO.5:
” mdiwlw gm:
Inzhe thé may caused by such
on the nonhem side of sufi
~sghe¢1uzepropenya::ditwasbaoaveedm;::ue
& by election q° same sum and
compound wall Wfmefore, the yaw
withoutaaoesstoherpmpertycmddnatemoy
thesame. Hmueuenlwouldwcemnotethat
33%//J
vi.P.uo.526s/zoos
intheeventthedefendants establishw that
the stone slabs and compound wall wide}:
they adnvutedzyemctemisnotamssthemad
and on the other hand it is well warm H
defendants esmmshes the ‘ %
slabs and compound
property belongs $9
As could be of the
stone wall, in tin event the
petitione1*s’Q/’e1¢:é’;I’car:f;’¢i’;aaf;’t§’ at the ttrhl that the
_. _stone,. and wall was wet} within the
to mam, the respcmdent/pldntifl’
at her com
.3. the matter in the light of the
% 4A44′;u:Vxffincip1cé;”‘l;aid down by the Hoxrble Supreme Court in
mu vs. mm cmucm an mm 2003 ac
VT , relating to cxemisc of jurisdiction under Articm
R
W.P.NO.5’256/2008
226 & 227 of the Constitution of India pertwnmg to
interlocutory orders pa%d by courts subordinate
the High Court.
4. In my opinion, the impuymd ‘fi;s1:’A–.:}aiI..1A 3 i
equitable order and cannot be too;
error of jurisdiction or emu’ the
recorcl to warrant intcxfcrcncc 611:1-a.u: 1
jurisdiction of this & 227 of
the Constitution off’ £33: 7 ‘ ” ‘V ”
Pctitioii