High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt N P Pushpa vs Chandru S/O. Late Siddappa on 19 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt N P Pushpa vs Chandru S/O. Late Siddappa on 19 June, 2009
Author: H.G.Ramesh
MFA. No. 1664 0172009 fC?C§
AND MISC. CIVIL 4253 OF 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT op' KARNATAKA AT BANQALQRE

DATED THIS THE 1971* DAY OF JL1NE;2ir)09vV'_',:---ii _ 7  

BEFORE     %
THE HONBLE we JUS'Pi€;I§f H:.C;_. RAMESS V  "
MEA, No. 1564 0i32(,$:)9'T(c:i:«t;)' '' 
$35.3}.     "
  OF %    

 ;

1 SMTN PPUSHPA  % 
W/O. LATE KUMAR. V »  v 
AGED ABQUT 3L-¢&*9;EARg%%%%% V «V 
R10. N£}."2396.=:KA;LEGOWv {;A_..EG}AD

 WHALL5 %

_ %  
MYSQRE VI13'I!'§'.!f !§tI..(__3"f..4' 
 .   K1  APPELLANT

(B1jSRL P  ADVOCATE)

X    er:%au::m 3/0. LATE smmzwa

 AGE}?  38 YEARS
 R/A-. ac». 2410, KALEGOWDA map
..N:'},NJANGUD TOWN - 57:30;
MYSQRE 1:>1s*m1c:'r
% ,  RESPONDENT

(RESZPQNDENT SERVED)
msc. cmz. 4253/2mg IS FEED UNDER exam

M41 RULE 5 R/W. 151 OF’ CEPJZB. PRAYING TO STAYTHE

OPERATION AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE

MFA. No. 1654 0? 2909 ECPC)
AND MISC. CIVIL 4253 0? 2009

2 %
IMPUGNED 012933 PASSED BY THE LEARNFfi;3.:”€.§IRIIL

JUDGE (sxum), NamANF,:e_ 4.3%m%E%4%; (r)
05* cm, AGAINST THE 01213212 {DATED *13.12«..2oN.), .NANJAN’GUD, Amownze 1A-

No.1 may UNDER oRDER;39RULEs 1′ 2 FOR
’12; _ ~

THIS MFA comm}cm?0§%%%l3k1jM1ss1oN ALONG
WITH MISC. CIVIL 4;2%5:3k 0F; DAY, THE
COURT DELIVEREB mm kx-jogmwxngsy; »

.,a_pp§3}1ant in thc appeal in RA.
No.72 r.§’fai2 (3£)’7′ is an intcrltncutoxy order

da§:c_% d’ 318*” passed by the lower appellate

CQ1;Il’$ LA, No.1 filed by the respondent by

appellant from putting-up any petty

k % .k snap :12: gm’ dispesal ef the afuresajd appeal,

I have heard the learned counxi appearing

” lféf flie appellant and perused the impugmd order, The

3&5/’

!\§F’A. N0. 1664 OF 2009 {CFC}
AND MISC. CIVIL4253 OF’ 2009

3
respondent thaugh served with the notice of

has remained absent. _
. 4?.

3, A perusal of the ” up/_

ag

}?a1″ag’aph-9, the lower appelléiitf
that the appellant had 1L).i.3t–p;”pV..V k¥..-mgpk 193/
relying on the 1*epori~..9f — Cguncil,
Nanjangud. In my _§:’}:§};i%5§§T, appel1atC Court

having obsesjrrvcfz;-.r£iV Vfi:11a’i:;A__ thfi already put-up

the V passkag the impugned
9rder”-filpugled girder is liable to be
set aside, IA’i3:1Va 1§=.2 the fofl-swing order:

(ii)? A.t}1t_=: order is sat aside, LA’
” tiled in RA. N0.72/2007 stands

A j dismissed;

~~ V thfi lowttr appellate Court is directed to
dispose 31′ the appeal in RA.
No.72] 2007 cxpeditieusly and in any
event within three months from the

B<\'p/

MFA. No. 1664 OF 2009 {CFC}
AND MISC. CIVIL 4253 OF'2009

4

date of receipt] pmductien cf a u

this judgement g

In View of allmving tbs é_vppt:§-.:a_1«_. ‘

passed 011 Misc. cm: 4253-/_2Q£)§?A.§1ed $

and it stands disposed of ._ 1