High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Sajida Begum vs Shri Faiz Hussain’ on 20 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Sajida Begum vs Shri Faiz Hussain’ on 20 March, 2008
Author: H.G.Ramesh


WI’. NQ3909/2008

[H mm mm: oomtr or uauxrum AT
mm» mm mm 2011 my or lumen 2003 S f »

3EF’0RE

run norrsm unausncn

1 SM’? SAJIDA BEGUM
AGED ABOUTSSYEARS, V — _
D/O LATE HAJEE A.R._ A’B.DU_’L.
w/o DRISMAIL SHARi’F’¥*’T-. r ‘
No.204, KENNEY _ .

GREENBAY, wzscouszetv» .

U.S.A. :

2

D/0 I.A’I’i1H£§_.JEE ALR.ADEidL’AZEE§Z,
w/ow, MGHAMMEE) omega RE-HMAN,
M02244,’13c:r~1Ev*zoa1;,’». .
MOSINEE WENSONIN, ‘ –

U.S.A’.. « –

3 SHRI H 1vr».JAvED -@ IJILLEJ
AGEDLAABOU”-PASQ YEARS,
s/.0 Mrs HAJEE. A…R.ABnu1. AZEEZ
A No.55e3,”mcKORY STREET
. ‘«scrao1~’z;-:–1,n’,~ wiscousm 54479,
” u.$.A;«._ ~ p

4 ‘saw D1Li)AR 1-russmn
AGED: ABOUT 47 YEARS,
s/o. IATE HAJEE A.R.ABDi}i. AZEEZ,
* AA No.15, ‘mas? 91,0012, NORTH EASTERN
.. ‘RQOMS. ISI-IAQ SAHEB STREET,
~ – JASACHANIRAJAN-DRA HAGAR,

– BANGALORE 6. pmnonms

‘T : “(B’Sr SRl GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADV.)

W.P. NO.3909fH8

1 SHRI FAIZ HUSSAN

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

S/O LATE I-IAJEE A.R.ABDUL AZEEZ,
N015, IS!-IAQ SAHEB SPREET’
JAYACHAMARAJENDRA NAGAR,
MUNI REDDY PALYAM

BANGALORE 5. 12EsPc::e:>sé~t’}4 ‘

(BY SR} MANZOOR PASHA, ADV. FOR C] R)

THIS wm’ PE’I’I’I’ION WLED UN£)ER”‘ARTJCLE.f3 722S: as?
227 OF THE cousrmmon or INDIA mmrmcwo. QUASH
“ma: ORDER 0’1’. 12.2.2008 VIDE ANNE:<:.H;._ IN 0.310306/93"… "

PASSED on IA on THE FILE opcm ‘cum. Juzacmgccxag
No.29) AND FURTHER BE PLEASESDETO CALL FOR vamoms
IN THE C!RCUMS’I’ANCES or THE cage.» ” T —

THIS PE’I’I’l’ION c0M1NGv&””o*r§.;’% fog Pésumiumv

‘ HEARING, THIS DAY, THE CO_U’RT ‘i’HE FOLLOMNG:

Tllies -‘defendants is (1%
agam’ st dated 12.02.2008

the trial court — the Court of

Mayo Hall, Banmlorc afiowing the

V the respo. admit/plahlfifi under

$317 r/w Section 151 of the CPC seeking

amend the p1a=’mt in the suit in

%Mt).s.;N¢§1o%3o5/1993.

My

“LP. 110.3909/20%

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearixzgjbr

the parties and perused the impugned .
Anncxum-H. The impugned order is not a *
orderand hence, it is nahlem besr:t”£tsfsd¢.”..’ T “L

3. In View of the above, I 3

1) the impugned order 12/02;:2oos%
is set–asidc; % “

ii) the matter is 
for    with
law.         

petitiongiispzfigexs of;
3udg§

2 …..