High Court Karnataka High Court

Abdul Latheef vs Smt Yasmin Hamad on 14 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Abdul Latheef vs Smt Yasmin Hamad on 14 September, 2009
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 14th day of September. 2009 

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MiR..JUs'rIeE Asaox  " ~ V. 

WRIT PETETION N0. 27e18'of:.2e.e9 
BETWEEN:

Abdul Latheef,

S / 0 B Abbas,

A/a 34 years, "    

Shanthi Angady House, H "  vi

Jodumarga Posfg'  '  .  . 

Kaikarnba, Bic. Road,  a   A ' 

Bantwal   "       .  Petitioner

 bbbb  " ' =   Advocate, for
 V E%ri=I_.Thai<ana_t1: Peojary, Advocate}
AND : 3 N J

Smtgf Yasmin  in

 V'  _ W}/._e':*H;amavd Bhava; -------- ~ "
, A/_a 27' yearss.,

Flat '  30, 1*, s Aroma Residency,

1" .Ka"ikar'Iib'a,_ Bi.."C.""Road,

Bar£twa1_ Taluk. ...Respondent

Ti'iis wi-it Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

 d1e"~«C0nstituti0n of India, praying to quash the order dated
'iAV2G.'-7.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division} and

JMFC, Bantwal, DK, on I.A.N0. H1 in 0.3 No. 102/ O7 Vide Anx.

 is  A and consequently allow the I.A.No. III and etc.,



' '~f11g,d:~ 

This Writ Petition coming on for preiiminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following: 

ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the’ order 7.

{Annexure–A} passed by the Court__ Cixfiigrjudgei
Division) and JMFC, Bantwa1;”-,§’;K, on I…A’.N.o,’*,Iii’i,:’i£1″o.s. No.

102/2007.

2. The pefitione_r..fiied the respondent
seeking the ithefisale agreement, dated
5.2.2007. pro§.;eaings he filed I.A.No. In
seeking of one Ismail Hussain Shaffi
and Nos. 2 and 3. The Trial Court
dismissed aggrieved by the same, this petition is
counsel for the petitioner submits that

Ismail Shaffi is the original owner of the property in

question; The petitioner and Habibulla together had entered

iixtotfan agreement with Ismail Hussain Shaffi. He therefore

R314′.

submits that they are necessary parties for adgudication of the

disputes involved in the suit.

4. Ismail Hussain Shaffi and Habibulla ar;e”’11ot”~;tiai9i.ies.to

the sale agreement, the specific performariceofuwhicih’ is soULg.ht'”V._

in the suit. Therefore, the Trial,’ Coiirtj. in V

I.A.No. 111. Not finding any 3u1jisdicti.or1al erroriilviioisrrigists
petition. However, liberty is to to work
out his remedies tnciepentieintivgr of O.S. No.
102 / 2007. Further to the petitioner
to have Ismailétfigissaiii examined as the

witnessesf if hegsho ‘des4ir’efjs.a11d_i* if ‘*it”is otherwise open to him.

Subject to these observations liberties. this

petition is dismissed.

ck}/-»