High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Narasimhamurthy vs Sri Raghunandhan on 20 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Narasimhamurthy vs Sri Raghunandhan on 20 April, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
IN THE} BEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN

DATED THIS THE 20th SAY OF' APRIL 2{3c'3'§  " 

BEFORE

THE HQNBLE Mr. JUSTICE'B.«S.i?ATif; '   

'WRIT PETITEON No. 7: OF émja iG;x»:{<::é_<;,*; = V' 

SETWEENI

1.

Sri. Narasimhammfiiy A

8/0. Latc Apparma,   _ 

Aged about 45 years,     
Working for tbs: Bangaiérc S1-1r@'Ca"iv_  '
No.32/33, Krishna;2ajend1wa»--Roa;i,
Opp. Va11i_.Vi.1a.t%js&i.1-{€.1s;}iLc;1,  3 V ' 
Bangaloré -- _;360"{L*f}2    '

Sri. :§.A.Na1-ayaxiaswaxny   ;

S/0. Latc._Appa1:§na   " 

Aged about 33"Vye'ars,_   V

R€Sidi1'}gLa1i Kfinetghfitiz-X Village,'
Ko3?i3$~}1atta'PQst', scddabaiiapm Tamk,

" .c

 I:3é_..i:;g;3.1;):*e Dis 

  
' ._'Vi-'[0. 'Lea';_t€__ A

Aged abo1:1_t?6 years,
R::'3id'i:1g'eit Konaghatta Village,
Eianéaghatta Post, Doddabaiiapur Taluk,

"Ba:1ga'}ore District
x(Bc_§:;1efit of Senior Citiznenship not Claimed)

 5Smt. Krishnapiya

8/ 0. Late Apparzna,
Aged about 56 years,



Residing at Konaghatta Vzliage,
Koaaghatta Post, Dodciaballapur Taluk,

Bangalore District

{Sr}. K. Ramesh, Advocate)

AND:

1.

(S11. mjaya<M' N.  
Nagaiatha for" R1}

. Sri. Rmnachanfira

Srl. Raghunandhan

S / 0. Late Appanna, .

Aged about 43. years, 2 
Residing at Konaghatta V111ag{_:,". _ K ' ~
Konaghatta Post, Dodtia,ba11apt1ii'§'a}"uk,
Bangalore District " " 3 if V   

S / 0. Late Appaima, _

Aged a13u.t--'5'v14yAé;a;?s;v j __ '    ,
Residmg at Kg3i1agImtt&T§f111¢:gC,  
iicnaghattzi' P€>':3't; ; .D0d_da_ba11a.pu1f.?Taluk,
Bangz;L1ore"IZ}i$1:1'ic{;" " _ 

RESPONDENTS

 Qkdvmate and Smt. SK.

 Pétitiufl is filed under Articles 226 and

 '=_2?"?"n.,o1' the -C:e:nstituti0n of India praying to call for

f€_d$Q_§1$  '$0.435/2002 pending on the file' of the

--  C0u1:*i:--.,' (if  Judge:
'  Do&<§,a,bal}apt;;;'Tperuse the same and set-aside the order
 -dated " 1'3,1{3'.2Q{)8 allowing amendment appficaiion

" ~  w__t13rough f{._A. No.8 Vléfi Axmexure --» E.

anti JMFCL, at

{Sr.{)r3.)

%



This Writ Petition coming an for orders this d.é§.f§'.;

Court. 13.1;-xhde the foikmzingt

ORDER

iA–8 flied by the plaintiff seei<::ijr1g;:é3§1i:<=§':1di}%:1.'é1I..i?:'

plairst to incorporats an ,*2.1(;iciiti§:i':1_;':ii* at

paragarph-»8 stating as to how arose
for the suit, has b€:eii._._.'§e~'J_}<}'i}:.re§i» Court below.
Aggrieved by the same, prescfxt"iir:fit':VV-.;i;é'é:itin is filed

bythe

2. the Vifiamled Counsel for tha

petitiorxeré’ iibjection was filed tcs IA»-8 by

the flIT§i”d§§f6%id2i1f}§E’€)I}.:’i)9.iZ{}{}8, the Cieurt below has

*ct> ‘ ~:-glow appiication withaut considering

me abj€:§:ii.£)’1:t3.

3. ‘~v[fi}$Ig5i’§.V”63 heard the learned 2013136} for the particas.

ijfuposed amendment is to the foilowirig effect:

“Add para 8(3): Piaintifl’ states that during 3.” wmk
of July, 2902 he has insisted and daznanded

fig

defendants for the paxtition of the schedule
properties by metee and bounds by cenveeiiig a

panchayath comprising the elders of the

defendants deeiined to partition the ~

properties ané aiso to gve 1/ seize”

piaintifi’. Defendants have

plaintiif has contracted inter~3’e.as’§,eA.ma1*1fiage ~_

is not entitled to get Qvelj fhe”‘:.sehedu1e ” ii

premises. The ekiers hayfe-.e1eQ advised them, but
the defendants, ‘have :1’_io’§.t0 their words.
Hence, plaintiff is eo1j1sf;:*ei.i:ied._:i’t:i’.j the suit for

partitioriif’ .

In p3ra{;fe.f}h~8eV5ef jéleintiff has pleaded that

the eeilee of aef.ier3::_ijfer’–. «suit erase on several dates

: during 1999i¥2Qe 2002. What the piaintiif intends

V’ “Le Adi} eia.borate”the contention taken in paragraphs

‘giafiaigraph-8(a). Thcsugh the Cotjrt below

wotiizi h_ave_?::een well advised if it had considered the

R””._e%:gjeetie1:si:’and passed an order, that by itself carmet

_ ‘:’¥’8V.vfr.§”_rit interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, as in

my: Censidered view, there is no faiiure of justice in the

facts and cirzzumsmrxttes of this case. In addition,’

that mere is nothing to indicaie from {ha ordere§3i’:<é£::…'Ij}iaf %

the first defenéant was presexizt before 1;.,».::. "

argued in support of the objecii;)ns.. .'

matter was heard on IA No.83

In that View of "it:/['.A:§.$"1;nnecessa;y to
interfere with time, 0r(:ie,–;* iigéx No.8. Any
interference i the Proceedifig
which is_ Hence, this writ
petition ' % ' 1 – …_

Saif…

Iudgé