St Andrew'S Church vs St Andrew 'S Education Society on 26 May, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

St Andrew'S Church vs St Andrew 'S Education Society on 26 May, 2008

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

 

IA.No.I in OS.No.696 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the I_x3:ddl4;"'C'i:'v.s,I  --
Judge (Jr.Dn.) I-iubli, partly allowing IA.No.1 fl':-edvunder

order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the cogie of Ci\ii'1"'P.r'oceou'r.e  "
and consequently dismiss the 1A.i~:o.1' ﬁiéo'«in'--os;.<r»io';oe§ or
2001, a true copy of which is produced a_t"A.rinex_u'reé'ﬁ.."  

This petition coming on r'oi"«--preIirninan,r

group this day, the Court made tlst.ev"'foIlowin---gt;  
on .3' D ER'   

Petitioner is the cierenu"nnti--,:in:l'o%_,'§i5esgl2oo1 on the
file of the  Hubli.
Respondent  ..suit for relief of

permanent """ the defendant/writ petitionerl'and,'_itsV'interfering into any portion of the suit prop_erty,V'whl'cnhas been described as portions the,_~E5uilt__llupV, strut:itu.r.es, comprising of pump house, two Vk:.l_ass,"i*oorn.s,'~,trarpentry rooms, watchman room, gociown V roorrr,l.and.VstaffV,',1:rVoom, in a portion of 45 guntas of n.,s-No."iQ7",.,Gacsag Road, Hubli. In the said suit, the filed I.A.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for "grant of order of temporary injunction against the "defendant. The said suit and the said application have tyeen contested by the defendant. The trial Court after Z. he,ari.n'g.. ..i n proper consideration and appreciation of the mat_eri'a'l-s'_'on_". r.- record and that it was justified in aliowing in modifying the impugned order of theI__triai..Cfoort.:'._,Leai"n:e.d counsel further submitted that ti1o.ugh thelwrit pietVi't,§AonV_V.wa_jis V filed in the year 2005, there is oi; stay granted by this Court the trial Court as well,' as ::Lap'peii'e't'e"V" Court are operating and si"n'c'e..:.1'tVhe:i-.trial"?of has already commenced, this Court should decline petitioner. Learned counsel suvhmuitted may be directed to expeditethe trial_:Vari»dv'* disposal of the suit, so that, the :_'j'rig'h,ts t'he"i--parties""'"'can be adjudicated on rnerits. «.f|.ii_:i7t|'!ef contended that, the petitioner ldc-..~'»havindJnoty..ch}3i'llVenged the order dated 18.10.2003, _.l.l.i'_;'.,_wlhe,rein it"he's been held that the plaintiff has established p.ri'nn_a».faci«e case and that the balance of convenience is in V' fairour and that it shall suffer irreparable loss and ..,i_nj'ury, cannot feel aggrieved by the impugned order. / cmsnseé far free ;2e:%iir:mei':* iéaai we iawer Cmgﬁ has §£_"3i§i"_:E wiiﬁ :*;*':ai;&r'é3§ %¥"?§3§i:&%a?'%iy anti éiéagaiéiy. Siam §;'1§--f€;"£:s.':_L'z--4rj'é$.._4 belaw haxze pasmd we f;3.f'iT§§!' ma :..::a...f3., if-§:7%2e;E¥':g "§:f":i¥i§ "': ' cm':s%de:*at§e:2 ma mirzaa fargiia ma%_%r%:»3.§;S $.1 aci=:;I§* br1 ":fé_£:ir*-._ V s"e:::a:"é, it aazxrsét be sa§é that we f§§*;r;iiﬁ1§§'~'iVz2 sréer are basaﬁ an surmsses aé2.é"'~:5>nje&tt;res_. 1

8. Since the 3,23%: %..~;°:_§"'¢:' :s"2":e--.'5§*=')Eéé";'"';»L._sf" E=:3:.=":é'~§?%_'}V{.in£:ii§i'e aim has been ;3s=2:=;::§Es'ag a::r%s_i'€izéé*-3£'5g:';z ma: Cg:-uri far ':'rm:°e téza:z'*§i.;<T i;;5ea:9§;:.; it: i?$.;*f:2.5;at a°:*:;a::VVV;3%a;>e;° ta: :%§:'6s:::: the ma; Cami: *?.s:"'&>c:;;';:;e:.'.%'i'€é'§.~§i%":;'e:~*.s..i:.:ié3;§e.$éf__:2?' the amt, i<.&E§'é¥}Q in a.s%ew the §}{'éV§SExiii'*i'."§$ -;rr:a_ai'é._ the Kamaiaiqa {£2353 ?%"'§:';vs:

;'v'§az2zf:*g§'er2j7§é:"zf;V ii"; S"a§'i:+Q.¥f.:é§nata §:§L1¥'?;S) Ruées, 2395. 9:; ..§§_:"t§':*:fe:*egc:i:':g, there is rm merit in the writ " pet§*ii--é:§_Vr§ a_:2d :i{'..'£é azzcegﬁmgiy désrrsisseé. n T Hégvévar, the Eeamed Adéiiian {:ivé§ Judge {3r.§r~;},, T"?i-4%-;:é..:'f'.--':s hereby +:i§':"ett'eci ta éisprszéa (2% Qgéaeazzaal ,e»;=:;:5eéit€9:2sEy. Er; arzier ti: e:';a§:2§& we Eriai Com': is ﬁspcrse Lb'? the suit exgeééééaaégéy, 3%; ig aszﬁereﬁ %.§'::ai the §%a:r1tiﬁ' fsézaii ieazté am wmgséeie £§$ ﬂéﬁe of evédaﬁge ﬁafm'-e E33-3.29638. K 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court