High Court Karnataka High Court

Shodhana Shetty vs V Ramachandra Nayak.S on 30 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shodhana Shetty vs V Ramachandra Nayak.S on 30 November, 2010
Author: H.G.Ramesh
., 1 _
M.F.A.NO.1486.{2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAl\/IESI-I

Miscellaneous First Agaeal 160.1486(2Qi'6«'.f;_~'..'..:  

BETWEEN:

1. SR} SHODHANA SI-IE'I'I°Y

S / 0 LAT E KSADASHIVA SHETIY
AGE: ABOUT 31 YEARS

R/0 ELEGODIGE

MAHISHI VILLAGE

MATUR I-IOBLI
THEERTHAHALLI VILLAGE 
SHIMOGA DISTRICT

2. SM'I'.SHYAMALA SHETTY

W/0 Lani 
AGE: 56'{_EA:::?,_i§LANTN{;%s,.2:;, 3 8.: 4
_ ARE RESIDENTES OF
Ac/o CANARA TAILOR

G' '  OPP. CHURCH AYED ROAD

, "'I'I-I1RTIjIAI-EALLI TOWN AN D
=  ARE REPRESENTED
.  B7,.' APPELLANT No.1 AS THEIR GPA HOLDER ..APPELLANTS

I IE5";-~sR; GLAKSHMEESH RAO. ADVOCATEJ}



M. F,A.NO. 148642010

AND:

1. VRAMACHANDRA NAYAKS
S/O V.DE\/ANNA NAYAK
AGE: ABOUT 72 YEMZS
R/AT ALANKAR LODGE
AZJAD ROAD
THIRTHAHALLI TOVVN

2. SMT. V.GOWRi.S.NAYAK @ KAVITHA PAI
wmow OF LATE V.R.SHIVASHANKAR NAY
AGE: ABOUT 34 YEARS   -

3. NEETHU.V.NAYAK
AGE: ABOUT 14 YEARS

4. NITESH.\/CNAYAK
AGE'. ABOUT 11 YEARS

BOTH ARE RESPONDEN'1'SV2_;E'0 4  1 . V
ARE RESIDENTS OF CHATRARERI   .
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK '- '

5. SMT.vAT--IUI:aA

W/O vAI~r.ID AIIAMED .

AGE:AB()UT:42  '  V ..

R/AT RAG}-IAVENDRA 'E_X'I'Ei\E.SiON,--~

SOPPUGUDDE - "  . 

THIRTHAHALLI. - V    JIESPONDENTS

T_Hi'S  IS FILED' UNDER SECTION 104 READ WITH

AORDER T;'LIII.'E'RU"LE 1 {K} OF CPC PRAYiNG TO CALL FOR THE

REC»ORDS IN I«R.*A,Na,_50/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT
JUD.__GE,, SHvIMOc.A,«._AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
13.11._2'o09 'PAS~.SED" BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

O V' = ,_SHOMOGA. ON 'r.A.N*'os.II 8: III IN R.A.No.50/200'? AND DERECT THE
FIRST APPELLATE" COURT TO CONSIDER THE INTERLOCUTORY

APPLICATIQNONOSII & IE1 ON MERITS BY ALLOVVENG THE ABOVE

" T 5 1 APPEAL. .  ~

A <    i\/{.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS RE. MAINTAINABILITY

OF "THE" APPEAL THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

E'  . ._FOLLC})W1NG:



M.F.A.NO.1486g201O

JUDGMENT

Heard. The appeal is rnaintainable.

2. Sri G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel appeai=i–n’gVlo_r’.j’ ”

the appellants, after arguing the matter for_.sor1;.e T

submits that the appellants may be

for recalling of the impugned: orderl’—dated it

passed by the lower Appellate Codrt.c:..in R.A;’i\~’o.’58v/ 2t1){:)7Wby
showing cause as to why’th’ey vi’n.ot”send valiallath to

their advocate in time.

3. Leave as .ivs.gi’a’nted.:».Vff’he”appellants are at
liberty to apply to nlovver. for recalling of
the order showing cause as to why

they could notsend time to their advocate. The

lower fippellate Coutrt shall consider the same in

“‘acco1’da’nr:e¥’ and if the cause is accepted. it shall

recall ‘then irfnpiigned herein and restore the appeal in

V’VR.A.No’§’5O/.2Oc.’f. This appeal. stands disposed of

, , ., ‘ygcggréiflglygcc \\

– Appeal disposed of.

sd/-

IUDGE
Shl/–ata