Tn
. KASADA HOBLI
IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER. zoéé
BEFORE:
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANI) 1 '
Writ Petition NO34925 of.g0OéTT{QM:TcPA "A "
BETWEEN:
SR1 THZAGADE OOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
SON OF' SR1 LINGE GOWDA
R/O THURAGANUR VILLAGE
KASABAHOBLI V A
MALAVALLITALUK. _' . -
MANDYA DISTRIC =: _ PETITIONER
AND:
SR1 SHIVALINGE GOV. "*A"
AGED ABOUT 37 ' .
SON OF LATE 'LIN=GE OOWDA. ~~
R/O THURAGANUR VILLAGE
"MA1.;AVAI;L1 TALUK
'A__MAND_Y:'._VDiSITRIC'I_'. RESPONDENT
[Ry Sri. D R Sundaresh, Adv.)
"'TI~1I'SHPETI'I'ION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 3: 227 OF
'TI-IE CO~NSi'§'I'IU'I'iON OF INDIA; PRAYIEO TO QUAS-H THE ORDER
A DMED 23;-07.2009 IN RA. 22/09 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL
' JLJDOE, SENIOR DIVISION, MALAVALLI ON LA. No.5, PRODUCED
" _ AT'ANNE;qJRE - K AND DISMISS THE SAME AND E'rc.,
THIS PE'HTION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B'
~ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE EOL1.,Ovv1NG:--
Z
__ petition} as
2
ORDER
The present petition is filed by the plaintiff before the
trial court. The suit for injunction having been dismissed
by the trial court, an appeal was filed and in_.’tl_l1ie_.l_l1’irst
instance. the first appellate court had
maintenance of status quo. This s_tate_of affaiiesivcoritignued it
till the appearance of the resypolndentp’ he.rein._wh:§o in turn
filed an application in injunction order
against the appellant hgirnself.
2. The first?__’pap:pellatep coiirt 4_has”xp1″oeeeded to hear the
application in respondent and has
allowedflthe favour of the respondent.
3. It l is challenged in this writ
t :no:t”in dispute that the application for injunction
remains undecided as on today. The
l.firstll”‘app:ellate court ought to have considered the
l’l”flapplic_ation filed by the appellant which was pending
..il.’.–consideration along with l%No.5. This not having been
3
done, it is appropriate that the matter is remanded for
fresh consideration of both the applications, the one filed
by the appellant as well as IA No.5 and in the meanwhiie
the parties shall not interfere with e__até”r1«’ _
possession.
5. Accordingly, the writ “°’p.:etiti_0n The
impugned order No’A.A2H2V/ 2009 is
quashed.
AN/–