Sridhar vs Mohidul Islam Shaikh on 2 December, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sridhar vs Mohidul Islam Shaikh on 2 December, 2008

Author: N.Kumar

Bench: N.Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAID

DATED "ms THE 2nd DAY ore' DECEMBER, 2008   ff?  *' "

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE N.I§UMA!§ f:  I I ' I
wrzrr PETITION No.9260/V20Q8(G!9I¢_C2PC)  - II I

BETWEEN:

SRIDHAR,AGE 32 YEARS,  _   ;
sxo NARAYANANVEKAR    
occ: BUSINESS R/0 No.15, FLAT--I'!r>..ii'--1 --. A 
HOSUR BASAVANAGALLI,i3ELGAUM._}   ' 
3   1 '  " Bnrrrrzewmn

(BY SR1. S.N.HATTI,_V It 

AND:

1. MOHIDUL ISLAM' SHAiKI~i':f 
AGED 25 YEARS... osc: 311% Rio No.33, I-IOSUR,
P.B.12oA;::e-, .HAR1JAxwzmA SBA}-IAPUR, BELGAUM.

2.:.'jDEVENI)ARz%~KU"MAR, " """ "
vs./o MAHAVEERKOLHAPURE,
AGED 25.3590? 50 'mags,
R/O Nci2468,.MVEEVR':':.FUR GALE,

   SHAHAPUR BEL£3jA?JM.

 sgrnnaé, $20 MAHADEV RAD,

 «BASfaVA_.!~¥€iAL1J, smmpun, BELGAUM.
 7gi3,*z'v1~2r/égclncurr LAW FIRM, FOR R1, ADVS.)

f'8__I-IIKORDE, AGED 42 YEARS,
ace. BUILDER, R/O 13.3 HOSUR

MRESPONDEI'-I'I'S

   THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
 coNs'm*U'rIoN 025' INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISFRICYI' JUDGE BELGAUM
REJECTING I.A.No.I¥ IN R.A.No.52/3008 DATED 22.252008 VIDE

ANNEXE E AND ALLOW I.A.I1 AND ETC. 



THIS PETITION comm on FOR ORDERS mas DAY, 'magi

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the n order passed. on application Code of Civil Pmoedure for s?;a}yingAV.of '6pe1atie11"af judgment and decree passed .

.. .f.:eepq1:id.en3:" Q a suit

2. The 3 % A O.S.No.365/ 2902, I Additional Civil Judge(Senior 'declaration, pennanent injunction and the of possession for xeﬁgnd of yggeney. 'V of summons, defendants eritegeétl and ﬁled written statement The eemiest the suit. After trial, suit is the same, the petitioner has preferred "a::*','a.;:g5ea1.;L 1::-zsic said appeal an application for staying the V é decxee is ﬁled for the first time and the said V' came to be dismissed by the lower appeilate on the gmund, ﬁreﬂy, the petitioner did not contest ﬁie matter by filing written statement, secondly no material is placed to Show prime faeie how the judgment and deer:-tez _. 3-» is perverse. Therefore, it has dismissed the application.' Aggricvcd by the same, the: petitioner is before this ~

3. The material on record disclosgs ﬁrst dd 'V is the owner of the land. 3*" defendant in {he gvjif :1 apartments in the suit land. After the-3*' défggddant . up ﬂats, the plaintiﬂ' cntercd into <.d:g'*;'"s.-.;:1z1tV:--'z'1'i: £3113 defendant No.3 for pumhasc inc p]aiI1tiﬂ' contends 3"' actual possessimcx of the the plaintziff and exocutcd sale deed in favouifdbf defendant contends thatlvvdhcddid dzc property. During the course Qfu did not pmduce any evfdenge the property in question. TheVzVe;f'oreVfi1aTAs': -- to be decreed.

4. A circumstances, the lower appeilatc ' VvmsT in declining to grant iniacrim order of stay K' * V .' ' -~ 83 P1'8§Y=:ciw for?

" " No case for interference is made out. Hence, Sd/-+ kmv Judge

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court