..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATMuwA%l%%L 7
DATEDTIHBTKETTEDAYOFHARCHZOOB
BEFORE
was uomsm Mn. memes ‘ Q
WRIT PETITION N0.14303l2OQ’? {GM-CF»-‘if.
BETWEEN:
1
MAHABALA BIN ‘I’AMMAPPA.PUJARAI’ _ ”
smog DECEASED REP BY .D D
1(a) RATNAMMA KOM .
1 (b)
He)
– ltd};
AGED ABOUT 57 YEA¥x’S_
PREMANATH BIN .E§’;1..j’A1§1 .
AGED ABOU’Pf_I8 YEARS» _ V ‘ 1, 1-
sURED:~aD RA_’i31iie:;g.4Ar1A1a4§LA Puaaiel
AGED Aseufr 4a:yE.g12’.;_
ALLEARIE.R}OvH§§R!HAiJfi..$?l-UAGE
14.1-Iosxszom I–IOBi;I; swan TQ.
H;xss.w-D1s*:*._ ‘ ~
EISHFA PRAi«’;’AsI+1_.B:N MAI-{ABALA PUJARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
D CIOMUDDANNA.
‘ V ,s’s«:D»s,.1~.’f;*1’ma_z\ ;
. ” .:;UReADA.z3;Is:T’rA
A _KOPP_A *r<;s_.A,D
CHlCK1'u£A.'GALUR
T SHIVAPPA BIN MAHABALAPUJARI
' "AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
" Ci'-IIKI(.A ALUVARA,
SOMAVARPET TQ. –
MADIKERI DIST. PFIITTIOHERS
(BY sm ARAVEND M mama, ADV.)
W.P.!’~i0. 14303/2007
I ACHCHANNA BIN TAMMAPPA PUJARI
MAJOR
OF HARIHALLI VILLAGE
K.HOSKO’I’E HOBLI. ALURU TQ.
HASSAN 13131′. REsRc§i¢I3aiIs;r:3__’: _
{BY SR! M SUDHAKAR PAI, ADV.)
THIS WRET PETYFION FILED uNii)E1§ %AR’ricr;1’a-2:2-z,T%
THE consmvmon or» mom PRAYiNG1_’i’O QUASH THE.’
029212 m~.1e.s.2oo7 PASSED av, cM1.<.z1m_<3E (JR;;nv:~n* on
I.A.N0.20 IN SUIT O.S.NO.59/2{30'i–,._ WHICH IS
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEX-I3-AND
THIS PETITION co§A1NGV.»—-ofi} 'Fag Pnaumiwaav
HEARING IN "E" GROUP. '}".Hi'S DAY,:.Tl'~iE_ Vegcszmr MA_1)E THE
FOLLOWING: = .
‘ .O_,a”I)TE,_;l.E+…’j-._j .
This th§.=:”p1a’muu’s is directed
again’ st ‘at; * dated’ 16.8.2007
(AIme).§”¢i.”<:AfD) ' tiie ma} Court — the Court of
Alur 'K1 the suit in
their applicatim1–I.A.No.20
med «7'C)rdcr 26 Rule 9 of the opt: for
W " of a Court Commissitmer to mks a local
of the suit property, to measure the same
VT .¢ 'and: to report relating to its pos%sion.
W
_ 3 _
W.P.NO.14303/2007
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and perused the impugned ordclj
Anncxure-D. On consideration of the matter, _
Court has found that there wgs no ‘
appointment of a Court .¥:t?i:§ A :_ AA
refer to the following __of 2 ‘V
rejecw1g the app}icationfI.A.NoV.é:()’:. _’ 3 _ V
’10) Even _fozf of
C!’ the
is not the
the matter and
apafi the on the basis of
Court Comm:.ss’ inner,
the year 2001 and am this day
T perusal of order sheet, it clearly
‘;g”;f1es to show that the plar?tt’97’has come up
withnumber of mwewn this
Court haspmvided wportamfiiesfizr tlw
plai:1tg’;f}”topmceedwiththematter When
W.P.NO.14303/2007
the case has come up at thefag end Qftlw
trial ie. for the argument, this
has beenfiled, which clearly indicates ‘
the plaintyf want to drag on »4 “
No doubt, the Court
appointed even in a 2 V 2
order to know the
esentoase in s
Z L stipplied)
3. I in the 11¢: of the
. the Hen’ble Supreme Comt in
gas. may ctmnmm mu (Am 2003 so
of jm’isdiction under Art1cl’ cs
‘ [226 éftllc Constitution of India ‘ ‘ to
‘ orders passed by Courts subordmate to
W
W.P.NO. 1430312007
4. In my opinion, the impugned order does
sufibr from any ermr of jurisdiction or error
on the face at’ the record to warrant 3 V
the extraordinary jurisdiction of _
Article 227 of the Constitutionof
Petition dismissed. V ‘E
% A sap.