High Court Karnataka High Court

P.S. Chandrashekar vs P.S. Sathyanarayanna on 4 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
P.S. Chandrashekar vs P.S. Sathyanarayanna on 4 March, 2010
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
W.P.NO.5139/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE'
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2010 g  Q
BEFORE  V' V'
THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE K. I3I:LA.K:IIAVAfI¥s.%§I.Ii':   1'
WRIT PETITION No.5139/2:6'10i(C}S:I--€3P1&2}'    I
BETWEEN:  1'  V .

P.S.Chandrashekar

S / 0 P.Subramanya Setty

Aged about 53 years

Business at _ 

Sapthagiri Complex   '

Sreenidhi Enterpris§:s--_  I

B.H.Road,ArasikerE  "V . T  4_  ' 

Hassan District; " V     ,_.;PETI'l'IONER

(By Sri. B. Roop'es'rI: aI:I'd.  M';  I,';Advs .)
AND: V V H 4 '

P. S. Sathyanarajrana.

S/o P.Sub,ramanya Se3';ty"
Aged abodfg 48' years A'  _____ H _
'R/0° Opp ;'Hoy.Ist:--Ict..i;: ._  ...RESPONDEN'I'

This Wm Pétition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

" jCr)IV1's'citutiori.Qf3 India, praying to call for records in O.S.No.31 / 2003
,_or. 'uthe"F1e_.of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn) at Arasikere.

--  ZTf 1'isAWrit Petition coming on for preliminary" hearing, this

.   Court made the fo]1owing:~



W.P.NO.5l39/2010

ORDER

The petitior1er/defendant/appellant in R.A.No.294V[2lQ:Ci2l on

the file of Addl. District Judge at Hassan, is before”‘ihi’s«.l._lCio;u’r*iA

praying for modification of the impugned order .s

made in the above said appeal at Annextlre 11A”; j.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner._submitas”tt;Aat_v

Appellate Court erred in granting subject to a
condition that the appellant’ thevdarnages,
Rs.54.000/~ within 30AVdays froni also deposit
Rs.1.500/– per morithl V.

3. petitioner submits that at least
the time stipvulated to amount may be extended by one

more monrth,

‘”Si–nr:e”g there” llll is a decree in favour of the

respsofirlent,/plairfiiff for damages and also to pay future damages

‘ ‘V-«’every n1onth,Vthe’€–}r’irst Appellate Court is justified in granting stay

-..l.l’_j3subj.ect to depositing 50% of the damages and also to deposit a

it Rs1A_«1.500/– per month i se.

W.P.NO.5139/2010

5. I see no iliegality or infirmity in the impugned order. If the
petitioner has any good ground, he may approach the Appellate

Court and seek for extension of interim order. I see”‘no=._g’ood

ground to modify the interim order or grant further

with the interim order. _

6. In the result, the petition fai1sVda_n:d,_the

K”

dismissed. ‘ . f ‘a r

bI1V*

same’v is hereby — .. L