Y A Prakash vs Y A Mayadevi on 4 December, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Y A Prakash vs Y A Mayadevi on 4 December, 2009

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 4" DAY OF DECEMBER 

BEFORE

THE 1-fON'BLE MR.3L:sTICE'Aes'UBHA~sH
MFA.No.49O6/2W_QQ§';fiv  " *
MFA No.4907/2004-(ciric)f' 

MFA NO.4906/2004

BETWEEN:

Y.A.Prakash,   'V
S/0 Late Aj3:§3€%S_V\i_.3m¥,_/, 1: 
Aged abo.u.t"-453/Aesars;_ 

Residing in a-"'P_o"Vrti=-ssn4"'-.jj.--._""

No.6E3_3,__1-1 Ck--C;s~s:,:"»E    . .
Ashoknaga r, --i3SK:}I_S.__ 'ge;-~
Bangalore' +-  C50,} ..AppeHant

(By:Sri'; A.R;"IV1V-awﬁieshi for Sri. G.E'/lanivannan,

  AI~?'nPr5a'E<ash 8: G.V\"/"e'nkatesh, Advs)

    A   

$mt. Y'.A..;§?layadevi,
D/0 Late Appaswamy,

--- Aged about 37 years,
 .Wo"r_.king at Canara Bank,
'.C'i'r'c:'ie Office Road,

Trinity Circle, lVl.G.ROad,

A A "Bangalore -- 560 078. .. Respondents.

(By Sri B.Rangaswamy, Adv.) This MFA is filed u/o ><i_111 R1(r) oiiﬁpgottagama the order dated 30.3.2004 passed .~or:~.1Ag.f\E.o.'~IAI O.S.No.4495/2002 on the fifejio'f"t'he'-'XVII.V:Addi'.'7Cit';:

Civii Judge, Bangalore (CCH~146);"tiism'is_s'in'g IA";ii-!\ioi..II ﬂied u/o 39 R 1 and 2 r/v\ig._Sectio..n 151 Qf,."CF>'C"se'ek'ing=, temporary injunction. ' MFA NO.-4:907/2004 BETWEEN:

Y.A.PraF<aSh,_    V   .0  .

S/o Late Appas}w'aVrnVy'--,.é      

Aged about       '

Residing iri..Va"»-Poftion .. ' V No,683;"'1i_Ci:ioss':;~:

Asho¥¥:VvnagarV,V' i3S%{"Ii S'tia'g»e_, - -3 Bangaiore. -- 560» ..Appeiiant (E5yS_ri. A4;"R,iViah':3sAhv.fo't.VSri. G.Mani\/annan, M.P%;akash & G-..VVe__nE<_atesh, Advs.) 3 Amp; _ 'Sm't§ Y.A<;-"If~4a'iyadevi, D/R1 Late Afppaswa my, Aged..ai:{out 37 years, Woorking at Canara Bank, Cirtie Office Road, __ '"-?;"r"i':'a'i"ty Circie, M.G.Road, * Eiéangaiore W 560 078. .. Respondents.

_ (By Sri A.C.Baiaraj, Adv.) This MFA is filed u/o XLIII R1(r) of CPC against the order dated 30.3.2004 passed on 1A.No.1 in O.S.E\io.4<<195/2002 on the fiie of the X\/I1 Add}-..__ City Civii Judge, Bangaiore (CCH-16) dismissingVV.'£.i3_i.'i\iVo.I filed u-/o 39 R 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CE?C--ys'eekin.g temporary injunction. "

These MFAs coming on foryyhearirig'"th:i's,ci'ay',_ Court deiivered the foiiowing:-3' " V -4 -3 . Heard the learned coL!'ns'e-3 for the 0

2. M.F.A.No._4906/2__Q04_ ana.-_ isri.r=.A.i\io. 4907}{_20.0/iiAVV'a'i'*e~~V._f:iied'«.5,-.,.__'ti1e piainti-ff No.2 against the order ci'at_ed_ V30.-"30-2'0'0.'d'}J on I.A.i\Eo.II and 1.A.i\io.I resgi§.'evct~iveiyV'o'ass_e_dé:;n O.S.No.449S/2002 on the fiie of .i_ea.rn:éd.__ ><\/11 Additionai City cm: Judge, 'Ba'i1igaiore;_ V The piaintiffs had fiied I.A.No,1 and 2 Order 39 Ruies 1. and 2 read with section 151 'V"""seei<ing temporary order of mandatory injunction y»%<@«.

directing the defendant to restore the eiectricity under I./~\.i\io.1 and for temporary injunction against the defendant or any person claiming an-«d:eVtf"g:«i.V:"her restraining from dispossessing the piaintiffs' way interfering with the that suit scheduie property under it it I It

4. The triat _the'' rejected both the the same, these two separate ayg:>.,ra:'eaIs'V..§:ir§,e §':i'1~6jd'_:.,'iy'., __ order dated 1--10-2004 in IVE.F.A.N'o,'_49V()6;'ZCVO4yifdiériected the appeiiant and the d€.fi§3,ﬁdagt _____ rnaintain status~quo regarding ';po.sse.ss~iion""vof subject property as on date.

"T.h'e'rea'tt.§étithe matter had come up for orders on 1-8» 2OO5:'«;.TVhis Court had clubbed both the appeals and common order dated 1~8-2OOS observed as "_;under.- W K,» e( "This Court is of the opinion that this is_...__.3 matter, which requires to be resol~\1:e«di'~V. between th e p a rti es a rnica«'b'lV:*,#:,__Vja. r.- it ' notwithstanding the Release it sought to be set up again'st'«the_ Hence, both parties soug°'ht7.--t_irne their respective clie'r1_t"s..._on the p_rovpo's:a*l~.fo;r an amicabiersettlement.-.::_ In the «meanvtime. the respond'en"t«. to it take appropriate steps _.-..:iVrestlorati0n of electricity to in' the occupation of the"'a.pI5i:éV;!;§rarit.j_arici'th"e:f.§ppeiiant, in turn, is ci__irVec'tecl~ vxwiith the over--head w:ater'V:s'u.pplv_* to the premises of the fgs piond'eWn'tf{ ,, Thisorderhi 'na_s"b1een force from 1-8-2005. In fact who is the plaintiff No.2 before the trial sought for temporary injunction restraining the" cfef.e'ra"oant from interfering with the piaintiffs' "possesision and for mandatory injunction for "restoration of the electricity and water suppiy. From iéiiﬁr (3 the order of this Court dated 1-8-2005, literally the purpose of the appellant had been served and the appeilant had not made any grievance from 1~8F"2005 and since this order has been operating the parties, I find no useful purpose in keeping these appeals. l~lov?{eve.ru,lA. passed by this Court woufd -r:ontiVnue till

6. With this-.._'r:":ocl_ifiea.tio.n,_'both the appeals less;

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court