High Court Karnataka High Court

Murgewwa W/O Prabhurao Gandigudi vs Alam Khan S/O Jafar Khan Khansab on 23 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Murgewwa W/O Prabhurao Gandigudi vs Alam Khan S/O Jafar Khan Khansab on 23 February, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA.

DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF FEBRUA L   " 
BEFORE  :4   C '
THE HONTSLE MR. JUSTICEAACVAJEE' J. GIjV1\:¢;A:L--.i'.V 

W.P.N0.8O636 OF zoio (:'::»V_1i/1«c1C5:;)A%« . . " 
BETWEEN: V   ' 

SMTJVEURGEWWA  .
W/O PRABHURAO GANDIGUDL ~ _ _  _ .
AGE: 85 YEARS, occ: HOUSEHOLD, = _  ;
R/O H.N0.9~-439, SHAHABAZAR --  '
NEAR LAL HANUMAN T1+:;M;_vL1«:,y"' "
GULBARGA. ""a.' 3 v "$»W;

  V_  _     PETITIONER
[BY SR1 SHIVAKUMAR*K;g:,Ld-:)R{'A,D:\kf0CA*:E)

1. ALAMKHPa1\T'* C _  
s/0 JAFARVKHIXN 1+; 

AGE: MAJ0R."~'oV¢c:,BUs1NE'ss

2.:-T 'aAFAR'K%1;AN. A.  """" 
 S/'O KHAN
"A{CcA1,LED'-AS s*;..Q"MEIHA.BooB KHAN
1:HANsA;B;"_~MAaj'0R,
occg BUSINE.53S

  "BOTH R/CG. SHOT No.6~8.'21,
 .SITEj_ATEVD AT ARYA NAGAR.

"«I'{mMNABAD BASE. GULBAERGA.

... RESPONDENTS

interim Stay. The learned Appeliate

g’1*23inted an interim order. AS against the

V

¥\2

THIS we FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 0;’
THE CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER Ai\§1\EEXURE«D D’I’.23.’i1.2009 IN R.A.No.l28/2009
PASSED BY THE 111 ADDL. CML JUDGE (SR;DN.)
GULBARGA ON LA. 1 AND DIRECT THE R.ESPoA;.13fENfES.”*ro
PAY ALL ARREARS OF RENT TELL THE DATE E:’I;ii\jr—t’::}
THE APPEAL AND DIRECT TO GRANT’–~Ct:N’Dti51’IoN.AL–~ ..
ORDER TO DEPOSIT ARREAJES’:” Wm;

CONDITION.

THES PETITION ca*me;:iJ Ff(T§:¥<Pi%L.HEARING THIS
DAY, THE comm MADE*T}{i'E EQ1,Low1N€:g':"
' ' p p 9; 1)}-:3" it

The .pe?tit¥iohe1" :§ét"'i'S1vi'itVV' in O.S.No.325/2007

Seekiiig poSASte_egSioi7ipo*f<V:th'e Suit property. On CO1"}.t€St, the

suit istdeéereetd; which, the respondent filed

an';a.ppea1.x appeal the respondent makes an

griint'if1te1"im order, the petitioner is before this

2. lVl1′.ShiVaku1’I}E1I’ Kailoor. the iearned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that as on the date

of filing of the appeal, the respondent. was dueof

Rs.5.00.000/–. He submits that the App-ellatej

could not have granted an absoldie stay. . 2 V

3. I have perused the passedr..b_”fg tlalellllearnedll

Appellate Judge. islvvdecreed, but
however, the claim a sum of
as.54,00o -been v§.___:NeveI’the1ess, it is
open for “necessary application
before such application being
filed, shall invite the objections

from the respondvents proceed to dispose of the said

applicai;iolnip_in accordance with law. The learned

also would consider whether the appeal

itself carfi hleldisposed of at the earliest.

With these observatiolls, the petition stands

disposed of.

%%Sj&;:%§%[j%
,,,,,, W