High Court Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Dr A Rajasimha on 9 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Dr A Rajasimha on 9 February, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy


1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT;5\KA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 9′” DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. .iLJS’I’iCEL ANANE) ;3\*1.8.417»wO_F’ 2a()8’E(%DVEC'”&Ei§sgg;_ E’

BETWEEN:

i. Staze of Karnataka by its (fi1’it.::’:f”S¢c:*e.Eary,’
Vidhana Soudha, E
Bangal_0re–56{) 001, ” V’

The Director, E V _.

State Se1’icLiit’a-mi Dt2AfJ”{l’I”EI~”}’.1:VE’3l”lE’,’
IV F1001′, MLS{.;B.uiid:i._11g.g E’ V’

Ex.)

3. TheErgirziAi)i1″-;:Ct¢iVr;.
State S’e1,f.ié;L:,lti,1’1 ad D_e”pa;_ti1nes1t,
N’eE1.jG()D2;l.asVv2£n1yV’Sishu Vihar Circle,
~ gin. _Lai<sAhmi..p_L1ram,

~ '* A ""i'./Ey'I<.i}rr3_¥57Z'._() O08. … APPELLANTS

(By 'SE-'_r_nEEE./3a.R,Si":{i'V;'~aa(3z1n1b21, Additional Govemmem Pieader)

A E' _ AND? '

K " *A..D:".}§.Ra}21simha,

* yez1z's. Majox',
C2u"dé0l0gis1,
Door No.933, 1" Main,

3

Lakshmi pumm,
Mysore–57() 008.

Ex.)

Pi’llbh1}}’\’£il’.

6?. years. Major.

EndL:strialist,

Door No.933/2, 1″ Main,

Lakshmipuram, é
Nh$onv570008 .”,mRESPCfiU)ENTS”e;

(By Sh:’E.B.V.Rzz1″n;m. Advocate for Resfi<')':1£§ei1'1$No.'E

=51 95 =:'5 '~._

This Regular Seeondf Appee1l….E.;A"fi!ed._ut1de:1'Seetioin 100 of

Civii Code Procedure a1gaih";~':ai. the Jv.ud';;.:_jne_1it..M21nd Decree dated
E0.4.2007 passed in R.A.Nc)a.48e3!2'U.O§§» on 'I'i1e:f:'Vile–g)f' the Pgesiding
Officer, Fast Track C()urt–V,a_._Myso:fe.._ec7}iC.uV:*I'e.r:t" charge of Fast
Tracsk C.'our'{'–Il. (ii-§"i1;–éss;irj;5_,: ap';:»;:_a…:_ ".-uZ.n”i’he__fil’e«jo.i”i’E1ev’:I?1’i;1eEpu£ Civii fudge, ( J unior

Division), Niy-S()”i~7C za–.=1ii_: ete.. 3

This Ap{:}ez1i’ r..?o’11r:irA1′;;_1V'()i1 for orders this day. the Court

_dNwm@flmefimowmgm

UD(}lVII€N’l’

svuh,jej<:Lmatie:' of the suii xx-'us sewerage drain, which

" '§f" '<x4$«"z{:.<A<:z1usizzg_. hui.~;21n<;e. Both the courts having held that the Same

éouhg-hVt'to.*'be cfosed, it is now I't':p0£"{Ed that the same is eiosed for

oihev-t'ET:I:e being in terms of the impugned jL!dgt3fl"lCf}{S. He_nce,_ the

8

appeal itself is rendered infmctuous. It is therefore not necessary

to consider the appiication f0:’cond01mti0nof delay.

Accordingly, the appeai stands 1’ejectc:d.

JJ