SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 12627

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
SRI.K.G.HANUMANTHARAJU @ K.G.H. RAJU – Appellant
Versus
DAYANANDA – Respondent


Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Since this matter is being disposed at the

preliminary stage itself, I do not find any need to issue notice

to the respondent. Hence, notice is dispensed, so also on the

ground that no adverse orders are passed as against the

respondents.

The petitioner herein is none other than the plaintiff

before the trial court in O.S No.227/2011 before the Additional

Civil Judge and JMFC at Doddaballapura.

The suit came to be filed by the plaintiff for

permanent injunction not to dispose the plaintiff from the suits

schedule properties and to restrain the defendants or their

agents or henchmen from dispossessing the plaintiff and

consequently to restrain the defendants from causing damage

to the suit schedule properties and such other order.

- 5 -

It is the contention of plaintiff that pursuant to the

filing of the suit in the year 2011 more specifically, on

05.11.2011, the respondents defendants have been dragging

on the proceedings one way or the other and the trial court is

also not disposing of the matter expeditiously despite more

than a decade has been passed from the date of filing the suit.

It is the contention of the petitioner that he ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top