IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANGALORE?
DATED THIS THE 31*" DAY C}? SEPTEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJULA CP§§§3£L'UR'.__i ;_. A'
WRIT PE'§"I'{'IC}N N0.19983/2810 fGN§*C:PC} 'A--V.:: . "
BETWEEN
1. Sri. Abdu1Qa:£yum _
S/0 Late Sri. B. Mohammctfiv
Aged about 34 years
Smt. Ruicbiya V «_ _«
W/0 Sri. Abdui Qaiy1i"m _ -- L b V
Aged about 44 years V 'V '
Bmzliparté rcsidiz:§'g..LatT.
Basmah,'-3rd 0303.9'. " «
Azati N.--agar,.,U11a1
Mmlgaloré 'Ifaiuk' "
D;3i{shina.Ka:xna§:1a PETITIONERS
(By.. SI"i.'v»vA1§:;.'E'w'[';'A-:2i.":'§,§1_'13.S1,ld}I1a;t}. Rae, Advocate)
xflf
Sm; Abbmi'
__S/0 Latrtfiri. <2. K":.1,:::1hiRakl<i
q Agegi about 53 years
Rfesiéiflg at Kapxi Guclde
Afiavsra, Ma:1ga1om~«5?5 001
kw
.«/i "
...RESPONEEN'"£'
Sri. Cyrii Prasad Pais, Aévocate)
*k-Fri:
This WP. is fiifzd under Articie. 226 and 227 of 'tilt:
Ccnstitutiqm of India prayiug to quash the impug;:w:d :~r_der
ciatcd 28.5'2{}1{} found at AI1I3i€X"11I'€-C on i.A.N_o;r2
o.s3.Ne.5e/20 10 passed by the Iearnefi Ptincipafiu
Judge, Mangalo-re.
This WP. coming on for Pre3.imiua:ry "
Group this day, the court made t11evfc311<;mxzing--{'
oR9ER ? "
Heard the learz1ed C0uIi$$:S~~..f0r =a.s:."9w'e1} * L'
as the respondent.
2. The main ground tk;;E;R
= I.A.Nt;~;Ii”” the applicant] plaintifi”
,-‘:3.11&e1″ 0n:1er738 ‘-Rails 5 of CPC is allowed for
}_3ef’:0<é.——«*'I'he properties meznticned in
_ s;;1~;;1em 11e.__Itm Nos.1 to 3 of 1.A.No.2 stands
. _ a::;a.»;1f1sd;~-V,befgm judgment til} the defendants
' V file their ebjcrction.
M ” ‘<::;o <23/5"
V * A-:>cord.:ing to the learned counsal for the petitioners,
: __S§1b~~rL11e 4 of Ru1e~5 under Oxficzr 38 of (‘LPG would come: into
/’
piety in the present case, as 1:116 Carder of attachmfint is
contrary to Ru1e–f:”$ of Order 38, as there was me 0ppart§1n§i}§_
:0 the petitiorxers to fur;1ish security, failing _
alarm csrder cf attachment of property befont jE”:314f.7§g§¥.%if:if3TiV’§Z”‘£7,:’:€)?;1AI(i ”
have been (ions.
4. On perusal of the (53%i–i§i*..V_1}1€£A1hfii3;1fiiiVV 123.b<§":.fé;"' Vitfiis
noticed that the condifippal '<Q;f " –.r3tta{:'1iIxz<%:1i¢Av.*.§vas in
existence till the appeara§:i:.:éT::-f filing the
c}bj€€tioI1 statenaant- v_'}'I1011g§i'1 fought to have
been stafid by t;1i££V.i¢-:a:ifr1§ii'~VgLF:«£1dge-'are not carrectly typed, the
petitioner (Sf before fifis Court could have
_v coxxtggitéi the béfom the ma} C:011;rt. Though the
Of;' : é}?;"1'Z€§t{§_1'].}'L{i.fiIli befonsc judgment was made on
fp:3n?;Litio;:1c:r has not bothereci to file objections
' aftttfhis z§§pp45$éit'é111ce on 21-3,6.2(}10.
'A Under the circumstances, the above wxit peiiticzsn is
af dimcting the petitioners to apigroach the trial
311d; file um objerctians statement bzringing to thé notice
cf thfi trial Ceuri 11:18 grounds rajsfid in this petitionk' " W
flxccordirlgiy, petition is ciisposed cf.
Sdf
:uaqe
KVS