BEKWEEN: .
1
EN THE HIGH com'? OF' KARNATAKA AT BA;§§;;*.§gi::'f£V,E§"'A« _
DATEB THIS THE} 1631 DAY 0?' O{'fI'OBE;'}? _:' 2(}0:8' -- H
PRESENT
THE HOWBLE MR. mg). BiNAK}'V§RA;N ,z€3H§§i}?§JL,¥Se'Fi§E.,A "
Ara_ji2*~
THE HGN'BLE;..MRgJL?S'--Tf(§--E'V.'{}.SAB}v§AH»§'5F
WRIT APPgAi.,mi:§;v4%i:§} ;-ms
si;RYANA_§g*vAN;A g
V:~3'j'€>' 'A:ji£NAI'ég§*{A'NAPPa _'
'AGED ABQ{;T=é1«vYEARS»
R} SF HL7S.;:§ M BABU..,._.,:mv0CA'2*E.;
SAFHYANARAYANA REDDY
3; O.VI§%ARASIMfiA REDDY
..A;'{?;ED 40 YEARS
MOREPALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
BAGAPALL; TALUK
i{QLfi;R DISTRiC"F
KARNATAKA STATE
FI?€ANC§f&L CQRPORATEON
$30.1, TE-EIMMAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE62
BRANCH OFFICE AT KOLAR
REP' BY {TS MA1\E§&GER(LEGAL)
3 S PRASAD
SIC) LATE GANGAPPA
AGED 4: YEARS ;
PARTNER OF AMAR 011, MILL. '
BAGAPALL; TOWN V
KOLAR DISRTRICT
4 S GAMARNATH
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED 28 YEARS
PARTNER (I)? AMAR'-Q:L.'w:zLL.-~«.., *
BA{}APAI_.Li T()W~N -- "
I<iOLAR;'DI'SB*TRIéZ}'Fg
5 '5 G :~:AN':;s,£--s_HVKUM'zz.:2 - .
S30 ._LA'I'E c~m~NGV.aPEA
AG'§§D~24 3'-"EARS. '
PAR"f"NE'R 01? AMAR 011. MILL
4 ' "B.AGAPAL;;' TOWN
" KQLAR IDESR-'!'----§2§'Cf1' RESPONDENTS
T,§ii%s’4v%.£W;IT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF’ THE
1 “KAR:€aA.TA.x’A.”.T’H1~GH COURT ACT PRAYENG TO SEE’? ASIDE;
“ma 0222”}:-ER PAssE{:> 194 THE WRIT 1:>ETmQN
N0.!113$;§~,* 2907 DATES 8/1/2008.
..’I’;hEis Writ Appeal coming up far Pmfimmary Heamzg on
V. Attmday, the SABHAHIT 3., delivered the fenowing,
J U 3} G M E H T’
“£1115 appeal by the fifth respondent in WP.
N0.1386/230? is filfié being aggrieveci by the girder passed
0:1E.A.1]2€}0’7 datfii}. 8.1.2098.
\,,J» .
2. The first respondent hamin
NG.1386/200?’ seeking for a declagjation that”
27.12.2006 in respect of iiffir
a dixtrction to the resaponde;.i*£- ._;10’£ v_é$<a¢u'u:=', 'thewxjggistcfad
sale deed in iiaveur of the :tfsp<;1rids¥1_t 5in fm$pect of
scheduie properties' the first
respondcnt to mccive of from the
petitioner whicizfisé' towanis the loan
amount. If V§E'tiVt:ioner that the auction
has with law and fiflh
mspoffiigfit ig confirmation of sale and the
aucfign respondent dated 27.12.2006 §s
" _ tgznset a $iéi':';"' 'V
:°iz1T_ writ petition notice was issued to the
rt:s'pox1r17ei1-fiand confirmation of saie in respect of petition
3<:;h&dx:11s~:; property is stayed for a period
Being aggrieved by the rcjactinn of ~
respondent in the Writ petition has pzfcfcneii’
4. We have heard the 1ea111Ec3__
the appellant and the i€:a1″fied_.’L:.”counsv.€i=. Mfczs’ £116′
respondents.
53. The learned i f9 i* the appciiant
submitted tI:1.:;it4″&§3;o’*..:’V 1¢;s;n:e,f.a*”‘: S’1fli1g:1€’v.’L}’.E.i<3';g€ ought to have
vacatcecfi ti1€'_A§%iEi§fvQ}_"VVA:(73..iS}"3§§'3sé nafthc writ prittition itself finally
and Wa$"3:;_o{ " the order rejecting LA. 1 by
impz;g:3.¢d "dafed .78. }.:2{}i38.
6, have given caztfifl consideration to the
'c:;:IA1.%*e11t":i£)fi."_"-..oi§ §he Ieamed counsel appcazing for the
%% appénent: %
V' , H it is clear fiwcsm the perusal of the oréer impugned in
appeal as culled out above that the order passed on
'4 I.A.1f2007 i$ in the natum of an order passed on the basis
of the submission made by tha kaarncd counsei appearing for
we)»
"index: Yes] N0
016$' impugmd in the appeal. However, V» "
the Registry to expedite the pfltitionk ' '
Accordingly, the Writ I
Sd/-
" justice