K MOHAMMED MOOSA v. CONSTITUTED UNDER SOCIETIES

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.1578/2012(GM-CPC) BETWEEN : K MOHAMMED MOOSA SINCE DEAD, BY LRS:

MRS. AYESHA MOHAMMED MOOSA D/O KHADERY MOHAMMED MOOSA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS NO.53/4, NANDI DURGA ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE-560 046

MRS. SALMA D/O KHADERY MOHAMMED MOOSA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.202, MARIA NIVAS, BORE BANK ROAD, BANGALORE-560 046

MR. AMEEN MOOSA S/O KHADERY MOHAMMED MOOSA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.22, 13TH CROSS, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 046 ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI K.V.SHIVAKUMAR S/O K.VISHWANATHAIAH SETTY, NO.23, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 002. ...PETITIONER 2 (By Sri V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.) AND: 1 KARNATAKA PRADESH KURUBARA SANGHA CONSTITUTED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, OFFICE AT: KALIDASA MARG, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009 BY ITS PRESIDENT 2 THE PRESIDENT BEERESWARASWAMY TEMPLE BESIDE HARRY'S ROAD, OLD NO.1, NEW NO.23, BENSON ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE. 3 SHRI. H.M.MARIYAPPA PRESIDENT, BEERESWARASWAMY TEMPLE BESIDE HARRY'S ROAD, OLD NO.1, NEW NO.23, BENSON ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE. (By Sri H KANTHA RAJA & ROHITH D K, ADVS. FOR C/R1) ...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2011 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY IN O.S.NO.9254/07 VIDE ANN-A DIRECT APPOINTMENT OF THE COURT COMMISSIONER FOR DETENTION PRESERVATION BY WAY OF INSPECTION PERTAINING THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R An application under Order 39 Rule 7 of CPC seeking an 3 order of detention and preservation of suit schedule property filed by the plaintiff is rejected by the trial Court. Hence, the present petition.

2. The trial Court on considering the application by a detailed order has rejected the same. It came to the conclusion that when there is already an order of status quo, the question of entertaining the present application would not arise.

3. An order of status quo has already been granted in respect of the schedule property, in violation whereof, the plaintiff is entitled in law to seek an appropriate remedy. An application of this nature in furtherance of an order of status quo, therefore, has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. I do not find any error committed by the trial Court that calls for interference. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE nas.