The Shanthinagar House Building vs G Raju on 2 June, 2009

(By SriSha§1:i_ KirénA§E%iié€ty, Advocate)
  1. % cs] 131.33%};  V% 
" " Gundappa Gowciia Road,

  K. Srinivasaiu Raddy,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAi;{3:éE_ '
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY 0:9 JUNE,  1   
BEFoREj"~  

THE I-iON'BLE MR.J'U'STIC3E 'w5%1AL135? 3'I»; a " 
WRIT PENFION' No.:g555 %{§F.:g@.Q7{(§1»1;CVi3c)%L;

BETWEEN :

The Sha11t11inagaf'}v:§*:ust:_ B1__1i}diI3g   .. 
C0~Operative__S0cieۤ{_Ltd.:,_    V
N{>.42---13, 1:1 F10;-".u4i",_9.' % A  "

8th 'E'  .. 

Jayanagsjir,  _  .4  _
Bangalore; -560 {}'3':'1..,' "  --. ' '

Represented by its._f)ifrVec'¥;~3.r' " « .  . . . .P&'I'ITIONER

Aged a§)c;«uVt'~V'56 years,
, S/9 Latg Gundappa Gowda,
 R/La M0322, 9th Cross,

A 'Ejipura, gangazam -~ 47.

Aged about 3'? years,

as

 



 

3. Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned " 

appearing far the petitiener contends 'mat thg  --  .A  

committed an error in allowing  j_ 

as much as the msporzdents art: nei'E.t1é}" I1fiC€S'~L.S8,§'_§?: nin-

pmper paliies to the pruceedifigg' 'I11V"s11;'AipciI't.' Qf his
contention he relied on  i{;.fi'1'e,Cas::V
T GQPAL vs. THE c1*1'§f_ %%m,;:;::c:p;x;,4 é{{3.fj'NCiL AND

0'2':-13123 reportrjd'i§j;:j{i'R:3f3{)€}Ci';K3%LR:;SN;N»:;. 122

4. mg   smvagi Rae, learned

0911:1561  1 85 2 contends that

the resgpundenxts-»   fieighhoum t0 the schedule

  that by the present suit the

  to hamper the nights of the

 ffispofldefi-i_ifS   far as usage of the schedule property _

 .. . fis_Ce.I1c_e:rritid.

uék"

 



-4-

5. On hearing both the sides, Pam of the
considered View that no interference is cailed for in me

impugned order for the foilowing reason:

 

In the application seeking for imp1ead1éien't=Tj:}iiei  M

respondents contend that a Road ;hés"'.3ee';r1   

the Corporatien in Sy.Nos.11,_ 12 i3V_z0f

Village. Hence, the usage ef id Iéoadi is
in order to reach the the
eontenfioiis urged’ by faeie it
would appear that: eemblance of
a right so is coneemed.

‘I’heref0reV,V”i£ie’ decide Whether the
petiti0nerVV’Ai:3V¥er1tVitIe;_i sought for by him.

trial in the, course of passing the

has also Came to the conciusien that no

to the rights of the piaintiff. Farm

iii eeifipieie age ement with the reasaning adopted by

€l:”

-5-

the trial Comm I firxl no good reason to

the impugned order pawed bythe @131 Court. .

For the afonzsaid reasons,

devoid of merits, is rejected.

rs};