High Court Karnataka High Court

Sayeeda Banu vs Mohammed Ziaulla on 19 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sayeeda Banu vs Mohammed Ziaulla on 19 February, 2010
Author: Ravi Malimath
{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT {3ANGAI.C5f?,E

DATED 'I'H1S'1'HE 19*» DAY OF FEE3RUARY.«2.(4)_'»1V.tO_'   

BEFORE

THE HUMBLE MR. JUS'1'1CE:"RA'Y{ M'A_my1A?m 

WRIT PETITION NO. 15aL14/  A

BETWEEN :

Sayeeda Banu,   _  '
W / o.Anwa1~ S_har1_e'ff. é _ 
Aged about   ,  "
Residing at?    
Clarke Road,   A
Richaljds T dwnf: ,
Be1ng21fQre'« 4 560 'GO

 ' "E ...PE3'I'ITIONER
(By    Adv.)

  1".nJ-1\?i()1*i§iri)if$_€;i:'.:Ziauila.

I S/c>.1ai;{éjM;30hammeci Ka.ssir:1.
 ahmlt, 40 years.
Nc;..1'é3/2. iv 'A' Cross.

VELJ.C'."R'oad. New Mission Road
(Brass. Bar1.ga1ore ~«« 560 027.

 Smt.Rahmathurmissa,
W/0.13?/e G.M0hammt:~.d Kasim.
Aged about 40 yeaus.

Atxa" . ".



IJ

R/at No.4/2, Kirmous builciiiig.

II C1'0s_:ss. Kaidsipalyam New

Extension,

Ban§.__;a101'€ - 560 002. ...RESPONDEN'I'S

{By S1'i.J(:>se Sebastian and A.11' ._(_V)':".cj1I;i*'°1
Rule 10 of Code of Civil P1'0c.:edurt1= passietii  ieaii*i1t~?di1Vi.:
XVII Additional City Civil Judge.. BaA1'1ga1()i'c,--§.;aS'séd ':fi)i'}i
02.01.2008

in O.S.N0.3194/1.99.8 a5″‘;)erVAi;.:1e2;’txre: ‘G’
actzoifling to iaw. it *

This writ: pet.iti().h”«. (:()’1f1’1i:I.3g’ ‘«.,gs~:,1″–..i’0r preZin’u’nary
hearing in ‘B’ Group. thi_s’ t,hL§_CO11rt made the
f0110\2v’ih§;–_§: V

in t_hVe’;;1.rai*’s §:ip.g§1it:.;i’t’i().i’i fiiaclei’ C)i’dei’ 1 Rule 10 of the

‘VC0Vci’€’ ()fE”Ci\’i’l..’P1′()C€dti’F€ was reje(ét.ed by the ‘i’ria1 C0l.1.1’1,.

H§’.i?iC€i 2 jjré’:£~f;é~1′}1 pet it ion.

2. 81171. S.Shaker Sliei’ty. leai’nee:i L’.()ul”1S€1 z-lppearing

‘=C.’i’0IfC the petitionei’ subhiit.5 that the impiigzled order is

bait} in law and liable to be sebaside. He submits that:

having mceived the sc’ri’1eduh% ;.)r(>pert.’_v by \m.y of gi’fi:. he

GJA/W”

5.1

has an interest in the sun property. Hence. he is

required to be heard in the suit.

3. T he leamed eoimsel appearing for
N0.i defends the in1pi,1g1’ied order and
21ppliea.1′:i(“m is filed belatedly ‘d1’1(l
the trial of the suit. woulci S’l’.’c1fir’i£l’Clf3l:i<i:;T_(%Cl' fL1I"£_lTl1e?-1'u.T:

4. The ‘I’ri3.l Courfiz of
the View that there is v1ielCz11is.e implead the
applicant and gift to

the filiilig bi” ééiin, 21p”p”i’iVc:ati()1’1 liable {.0 be

rejee1.ed.l* V *

I’have”pe1fi1sed both the 1’eas(,)r’1s given by the

Trier},Coi,ii’t’3h’d___t.he fiiidirig of the Trial Court’ that there

is’r1t5*e21Ljsejj0IL1′ aciiori so far the impleadirig a§1)pliCéH1l

leis eorieerrieci. The pet’.i£;i()ner elairns a right over the

‘~«l_Sr_:he{%eLile property havi1’1g received the sarrie by way of a

gift. Hence. there is a e21use of action for him to file the

present applieatiiorm

Q5/Zr

6. The gifi said to hEi\.»’C 1Lake1’1 pI*c11rir1g. In Vi€\,V of tlie

_p:31’zd_€:1>i(:y of the suit: SiI1(Tt:’ Iiht’ year E998. the Trial

‘”‘»(I_o.{1z’I’ is di1’e(‘tec} to ciisp(,)s(.? of Yht’? suit by t”he end of

“VVJi1I’l€ 2010.

SW3-~—~

For the 2~1f0rt:s21id 1*e21s01’1$ the i12’1;)u§};1’1c?d ()1?-$01′

dated 02.01.2008 passed by XVI; Add}. City cm: ;J§::0céfg;a::§”v00

Bznigalore City’ on LA. for impieading is ‘

for i_n1p§c:a1diz1g is 2′-lflowed 011 the 21I.)z>\i*’¢’reas’::)1’1s.

Petition st’e.1101ds disp(.)se'(i off &:1(:’kT(.)i1″€_Ii§’1§-_{1’\f..’ *

sps %%%% .