Chev. K M Joseph vs Mr M Nagendra on 17 January, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Chev. K M Joseph vs Mr M Nagendra on 17 January, 2011

Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 291 1
BEFORE ' %%

rag HONBLE MR. JUSTXCE  

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1o79.9i %%('c:9(_:}

BETWEEN:

CheV.K.M.J0seph,

[Senior Citizen],

S/0 K.M.MatheW.

Aged about 75 Years,

R/at No.70, 1~'="~ Stage, . 

Endiranagar,  « _   g  _ 'A 

BANGALORE - 560 038.  A      .. APPELLANT.

(Appelianfg  V" "

1. Mr;%M.%LiNager;dra;'  
Horlouiary' SéC.fetax'..y,' " 2 
Indiréinaga.r C.1'ui3_, " 
.C.3'-"*1 Maui, 4="'1' 'Cross,

~ }*{LAL'2I}d Stég3.... %%%%% <4 "

 . . V&"§A1'~i;*;ALoRE -- 560 003.
"2:  V _ 'Inrf1Vi'r$;11éigé."If..CEub,

_ " ~.9{,11  Cross!
' ._HAL. II Sieige,
BANGALORE -. 560 008.
 Réprésenied by its President,
AA '*~Mr.Mune Gowda. .. RESPONDENTS.

V' {By M/s.G.Suk'umaraI1 63: Associates, Adv. for R-1 6%: R-2] i»'\'('.":.w»§ ¥ This Appeal is ﬁled under Section 43, Rule l(r) of the Code of Civil Protredure, against: the order dated l2.0'?.201O passed on I.A.Vi in O.S.No.27'i7/2009 on the fiieof the XXXIX Additional City Civil 81 Sessions Judgei.."*Baii'galore, dismissing l.A.VI filed under Section E51 of Procedure for temporary injunction.

This Appeal Coming on for:v"ll5ld:Tiissi._ori' Court delivered the following: A _ JUDQMENT"V Plaintiff in O.S.No.2717p[l'2'§_').i)_S;}w._V_vonlltiierpfilei of XXXIX Additional City Civil Bangalore. has Come up in appealthe order dated

12.o7.2e:1o filed by him under Section 151 of CPC seekirlig;peifr1iis'siof2..itolpartieipate in games and health clinic pf i_t}:1el pending disposal of the suit in 'V.pois«.iSi:3.2'}li'$7/zoos.

2. Bfief lfalet_s.5'leading to this appeal are as under:

Aplpellant herein is plaintiff and respondents are del€eri,dfai'its in O.S.No.2717/2009 filed by appellant herein for tb.,e._}relief of injuntitiori resi:rai_:n_i11g first defendarit from x.

___.-1.» 4,,.»..oe irnplementing the I1()i'.iE?:f3 dated 11.03.2009 and alsaseelting cilireetion is second defendant, Club i;0.:'wfj'0.nvi:.ii1ue impleineniation of benevolent. funcl as reset:/"eci,'Ai1jle' ilts_llluiZ3i'<.FV Anntial General Body Meeting an"éi"'a.lse.A ferjﬂhje of injuiicttion restraining the first defen__deJ_1t froth A'('3eZ)IEt(3'$atli3_gl'§{)1' any post in the seeenci detvendaiatg'"Cluh reliefs.'

3. In the said suit, is ﬂied. It is also brought to tpiiex n0ti'ee':ef subsequent to filing of the vveilllpiaintiff frorn second defendarttiis behalf he has already filed a s'i_iit: on the file {if City Civil Judge, Bangalore wherein he has challenged the ,f.:'€1'I'13lv3»'".t'E;3'V..f.ll(v)'l"l Cf'Vl;Ii'S____lj{1&:1T1b€31'Shlp. When admittedly the " appellant herein is terminated from the seetjndilAdeferilﬁaiit, Club, question of considering his interim é1pp1iealtietl1'«;_in l.A.VI to permit him to participate in the games "__an"dVVl.he_alth clinic: facilities of the club does not arise. Therefore, eeneidering 2111 these aspects. the Court beiew has rightly" rejected the appiieation.

-43.». In the course of the arguments. it is ts:

notice of this Court that earner etiavtizieri' MFA No.3455/2010, this eoamby itsAié;ft1eréV:,'3;ieei Issued 3. direction to the eiiepose Vtof O.S.N0.2717/2009 by Ap_i*i1;_ 2tei.1V_iV,iQVii*eNow ettei? hearing the appeliant and respender;te:'it1V Ceurt is of the opinion that feet'"it't1e.«tj:Ap1aintiff is a senior citizen, agecf .Vab§i;:_t "'a1'1dv"ghe1s been member of the second thirty years, he is fighting a iitigation ehé£1e1;.gihg hie 'termination and also other injustice .«*s;_a1'ci beef1'vv--=:eused ta him by the management of eec:erd'<i._ Ciub in two suits, one in Q.s;i\;5;27i?'}?2r5o9 and another in e.s.No.8382/2010. W..___t)_,?S.N0.8S'8::2/2010 is concerning the termination of his; it£emt)ei_*ship from second defendant. Club. Unless and anti} ' ...""f;he__'hrder is either stayed in the Trial Court or decided finally reg__;a11'dir1g its e0r1'e(:i.:ness5 01' c>ihe.rw'ise. C{'il€S'{".iO1"1 of crezrisidering his prayer in I.A.V1 of O.S.N0i27}7/2009 does not arise. Therefore, keeping '(he iiiterest', of the appellant: and in pL1I'S'L1€r1I}C€ of the direct;i0z1 wh.ich is already. iii"'-MFA No.3455/2010, it is furthei" e1ariﬁ.red..1}If1a1:1_'tiﬁeptlifimlie.4_§$~i1i'tsuViz1. O.S.N0.2'717/2009 and o.s.No.8382;'!2ieiosiiaiiv 1§¢§%%pij::.1§}bibed "

together. taken up together. amid <1ispp:sed':..:df"'e1i:merits. on or before 30.06.20,E_1. it,-is that both parties to the suits shaalli the Trial Court in deciding the suii..~3eA0r1_ tiriziev stipulated herein. Wiitli appeal filed by appellant is dismiseed. ariyv brgier as to costs. Séfe EEESE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court