Sri Ranganath vs Smt T Geetha on 12 October, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ranganath vs Smt T Geetha on 12 October, 2022

Bench: B M Shyam Prasad

                          -1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                    BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

   WRIT PETITION NO. 57253 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:
   SRI RANGANATH
   S/O CHANNAIAH
   AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
   RESIDING AT MALLIGE RAOD
   1ST CROSS
   GOUKUL EXTENSION
   TUMAKURU-572 102.
                                   ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
   SMT T GEETHA
   W/O V M RAMESH BAU @ RAMESH
   AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
   RESIDING AT MALLIGE ROAD
   1ST CORSS, GOUKUL ESTENSION
   TUMAKURU-572 102.
                                  ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY., ADVOCATE)
     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1.9.2017
PASSED IN M.A.NO.11/2017 BY THE II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU AND
THEREBY    CONFIRMING/RESTORING    ORDER    OF
VACATING THE EXPARTE INTERIM ORDER OF
TEMPORARY INJUCTION GRANTED EARLIER AND
                                -2-




ALLOW THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE
4 CPC IN THE SUIT O.S.NO.727/2016 WHICH IS
PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

The controversy in this petition is, whether the appellate Court is justified in restraining the petitioner from putting up construction in the set back area of the respondent's property. The parties to the proceedings are before the trial Court in O.S.No.727/2016 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, and the appellate Court's order is dated 01.09.2017 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.11/2017 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would not prosecute this petition in view of the fact that he has completed the building maintaining a set back area of 2½ feet in due deference to this Court's interim order. With this -3- submission being taken on record, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE NV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court