Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramachandra S/O Rangappa vs Sri. Ramachandrappa on 26 November, 2010
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
M.F.A.NO,8922/2010 &
M."5C.Cvl.19?27 19728 &
20228 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
BEFORE 4 'V
THE HON'BLE MILJUSTICE H.G.RAMESI;I_f
Miscelkaneous First Apgeal visl6;892"2«[.;$a"()'V_;V11_'_:?g'
Misc.C\/3.19727, 19728'&_2o228fg:2o1.0'D 1;';
SR] RAMACHANDRA
S/0 RANGAPPA
AGE: ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/ AT PANATHUR VILLAGE V
PANATHUR POST, VA1V{Ti"IUR;HOB'L]"
BANGALoR"E:'soLfl-'H
BANGALC}RE§ 560'{_'r8'_Z_ . _' ..APPELLANT
[BY Ms. RUKM1reJI%.V.P,,.AijVO'CA 'E.)
_ 1. sR;.:;§A1vmcHANDgAPPA'
' ' S/.q_LA1_fEs:2;'1'HAY'PPA"
' AGE: ABOLIf1"'€;§3 YEARS
'S/o.,AN'1'H{§DDA RAMAiAH
AG__E: ABQUT----__74 YEARS
SR3 Y§:Li;,g\PPA
. ' xS[0 RAMAIAH
V. AGE); ABOUT 47 YEARS
,_ vsfu MUN} KRIS}-INAPPA
5;/o RAMAIAH
" 'AGE: AESOUT 44 YEARS
M. F.A.NO.8922z2010 8:
MfSC.Cvl. 1 9727, 1 92228 8:
20228 Of 2010
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT
MASTRI PAL-YA. BEGUR HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE
5. MRS. LOUSEA RADRIGUGUES
S/O LATE MANCIOERL RADRIGUES
AGE: ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NC).4-609. 6'?" FLOOR -
HIGH POINT. IV. 45 PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE -- 560 001 :3
{BY SR1 UETAM RAIA FOR M/s.DHARv1ASHREE.ASSOCIPA*I'ES:'_v
ADVOCATESJ . A
M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORD.ER'v.43'«»..RUI.E"Hr; OE CPC
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED..«_30.0'6.2oI~Q PASSED ON I.A.HI IN
O.S.NO.1728/2006 ON THE 'EILE_O.E AD"'D7i'TIONAL CITY CIVIL
JUDGE. BANGALORE. DISMISSLNG IA=NO.3 _E1I;--,EjE UNDER ORDER
39 RULES 1 & 2 READ WITH S.Ef,',T{ON-.15.} OF'.CPC.FOR T.I.
MISC;'C'.ILI'1I972'i3a€20I00IS' FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF
THE LIMI'iI'A'1'IO_N"AC--T_PRA'flNG« TOCONDONE THE DELAY OF 11
DAYS IN FILING THEAEIOVE ARPE-AL.'
MiSC.C"«I_Lf197E8_/SCIl0.IS FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES
I & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PRAYING TO PASS AN
AD~INT.€,RII'v§. ORDEEOP TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
"*'RESP.QN.D¥f3N'F._NO.5 ANDHIS AGENTS OR HENCPLMEN OR ANY
PERSONS "'C'LAIIv§ING THROUGH OR UNDER RESPONDENT No.5
SHFRONI ALTEVRIN-Q: AND CHANGING THE NATURE AND CHARACTER
OF '.IjHE- S'GHEDU_LE PROPERTY PENDING DISPOSAL OE TEE
AI3OvE_APPEA_I.,_, "
I.44MIS'C.CVII.2O228/ 2010 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15} OF
' CFC PR1-'LYING TO DISPENSE VVITH ISSUINO NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT NOS.I. 2, 3 8: 4 AS THEY ARE ONLY FORMAL
* 4 PARTIES TO THE CASE AND NO RELIEF IS SOUGHT IN THE
0' [ABOVE APPEAL.
Is/I.F.A. AND MIS.C\/L. APPLICATIONS COMING ON FOR
" ORDERS 'I'1~iIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MJ"-".A.No.8922g2010 &
M1'SC.Cvf.1 9727, 1 97128 &
20228 of 2Q1 O
JUDGMENT
Heard the appeal for admission.
2. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed..a.gainst.:::an it interlocutory order dated 30.06.201.10 pa.sosed"i;3%iih¢"magi Court namely, the Court of the,__.V Additionalay»Cirty:p_VCivi'l ll Judge, Bangalore, in the suit By the impugned order, the:fit;+ial the appellant's application ~ Vpf an order of temporary H No.5 {respondent liilnterfering with his possession Alllithe»._:i:'siiit.»_i.:schedule property pending disposal of the *suit;* _ heard'--wt.h_e_p_learned counsel appearing for the vgappellant._varid_'pe_rused the impugned order. The trial Co'urt',=.7onV consideration of the matter, finds that huthpeiappellant/plaintiff has not produced any ".accept.able material to show that he was in prima facie Wpoissessiori of the suit property and on the contrary. the ""V,VVrriat.erial produced by defendant No.5 would prirna facie establish. her possession over the suit property. The trial 4' M.F.A.No.8922/2010 & M!'SC.Cvi.1972? 1972884 20228 of 201Q Court has accordingly dismissed the aforesaid application. On the facts of the case. in my opinion. .tl*1€:p discretion exercised by the triai Court in appiication cannot be said to be arbitrary or c.a_pl'ri.cioi,_1sltol T' warrant interference in appeal. Nc:lgron11dl't.o ~iaclij1.*1i-t_1;Vll1'e"
appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In View of dismissal of t.hellllap_peal. tl?ie.intelrloc§utory applications namely 82 of 2010 also stand ciismisseAd_._f' it Appeai. it A " ' ' Sd/...