Najirahamad S/O. Hayatsab Mattur, vs Shobha Veerbhdrappa Makoppa, on 18 November, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Najirahamad S/O. Hayatsab Mattur, vs Shobha Veerbhdrappa Makoppa, on 18 November, 2011

Bench: K.L.Manjunath

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNAffA,.,Kzi_o.:'~ 

CIRCUIT BENCH A75 I>bIIAARwAp-- .1: 

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY  

BEFO§E

THE HON'BLE  ST"I_CI3.._I§V.A'L:I..MANvJUVNATH

Writ Pet_iti_on ,rI'o;6;2309}./_2o ":('GM-CPC)

BETWEEIQ  

Najira'hba'm.a?d S/IJIHayatsabﬁ/Iattur
Age: about 4'7.Vy.eVars;I._'"v __

Occ: G.overnme'n't.Ernjﬁ-10;--~'ee,
R/o.ShivajinaVga1'*',.Illfd 'Cross,
Haveri.  " .   

  D. Kulkarni, Advocate.)

_;I_NII'n

 1. ~~Sb;.obha Veerbhdrappa Makoppa

A.  Age: about 30 years,
 Occ: Household work,
' R/o.Hosanagar, Haveri.

  Veerbhadrappa Irappa Makoppa

Age: about 32 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.Hosanagar, Haveri.

3. Pratirna D/o.Veerbhdrappa Makoppa

Age: about 5 years,
Represented by respondent No.2.

Ev

....Petitioner.



2

4. Lalitavva Nagangouda Huggi
Age: about 62 years,
Occ: Household work, _
R/o.Hosanagar, Haveriﬁ

5. Divisional Controller, .. 
NWKRTC, Magavi Ch_a*:nbers~,
Haveri.   V

6. Branch Manag'er._, » pp
Life lnsurancepf' Indpiap,' j
P.B.Road, Haveri.-1 V     

   V' 4' ";.v.l.ReSp0ndents.

(R. 1 to R._6.  ljse1r=v.ed.__.«i) if . ll 

Th'is'-ovv:fit ip:etiti.o"n is .'filed under Articles 226
and 227 "Con_s"t.i.y,_tution of India, praying to
issue  Writ of'certi.orayrli_.or any other writ or order
quashing thew i'rrip,.u'gned order at Annexure-F,
dated l8~l.6.*2OO_97-, passed by the Civil Judge
(Jr.D'r'i__) and"J_MFC,' Haveri, in O.S.No.l56/2007 in

 1.A;j;HoE_.__x1v, etc)',-; ..... 

T.h'is_'«vt.ipe_tition coming on for preliminary

 B-group this day, the Court made the

foll'oiwing'iifQ15i?:ler.

ORDER

The grievance of the petitioner before the Court is that, on account of the violation of the interim order of injunction he filed an application (3.

under order 39 rule 2(A) of CPC defendants No.5 and 6. In order_.t.oip_":..p'vfoi$fe._ contention that there is a vi:olat_ii¢iI1,ii'the'pet.i.'t.i_onet filed an application calling for._ciertainv'irloicurnlenitsjl', from the Divisional Contirojller, land the Managing Directorv,:K.SRTiCV_iaii.d,he_alsosought for production of docurnevnts..ifrom--"'~th'e{_';Mi*anager, Bajaj Alliance Gegiieirial' In"Su1i'a'nce" Co-rnvpainy.

"The1ii«:.;:r_esponde"11t_s__contended that they have not order of injunction.

According to tl';e.ni, ~eit_;hier the LIC of India which is thejpdesfendantyi:No.6 or the Divisional Controller, I\IW;KRi'f:C),"vi"who is the defendant No.5, have not ii"re'leVasedfgt_he.'amount to the defendants No.1 to 4. It yvasv'--.i:al's'o contended that the amount is released l23r,the"'Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company, company is not a party to the suit and "there is no injunction restraining the said company from releasing the amount. If the said company has released the amount, the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of CPC is not maintainable. Under such circumstancesV~._iif_'the application filed by the petitioner is Court cannot found fault with they"C"ou'r,f"*bve.1ow.iiV' Accordingly, the writ petitionais::'dei..$rn'isis-eci. 5 ~;.s we'.

C _ . -3;'! guwwu Mrk/--

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court