1
IN THE HIGH mum on KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1?"! rm? 0? JUNE 2003
BEFORE é V %
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A s 3oP{a;§j3f:};AV ff: V
R SECOND APPEAL::Nb.'38;_:;.g3_H V
BETWEEN: T A.
1 RAMALINCHKMMA W10 IATE--.HE!¢!PAI.AE1_.'-._ *_;
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS L' _V '
2 MAMKARJUNA s/o"u.\TE HmPA:_H '
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS _
3 vEa1saKe;i*Es1i";~;;:§'LA*rE:HAMmAH
AGED ABOUT 2a;VarsA--:gs».%.
4 CHANf)f3ASHE'K.AI?.\»'Sl.--{3 LATE HAMPAIAH
map Aeoufr 24 mazes
" 5 V- .§Ac3ESHWARIHD)'O'MTE HAMPAIAH
~ . 3 AGED. ABQUF 22 YEARS
ALLVARE REsiDING AT QUARTER NUMBER 4,
. '-WA'l'ER*W(}RKS QUARTERS,
' NEAR. Vl;2AYANAG1&R COLLEGE,
'HQSPW; APPELLANTS
-- -« :13': SR! K"c--::}iAN1)reANA'rH ARIGA,
V SR1. 'K RANJAN KUMAR AND SR3 R PANDU, ADVB)
Sm' ERAMMA
HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED ABQUT 50 YEARS
L
'1
2 THIMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS '
3 LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
4 VEERESH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT MOKfi SHIWLPL:§§A"X{IIgL;&GE,
09 BELLARY TALUK - .
5 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR - _ v_ 'V " -'
KARNATAMURBANZWATER S.U'PFLY ~
AND DRA£NACEE' B()A--RD,_ 7%: FL.OOR',"""
KHB COM!?'1._EX.,-CAL-'5{ER"iT_BHAVAN,' '
K C} RO'A_[),.:§3£ggNGAI;QREV;- * * '
6 WE' %jx'E;fi::T:*{?§%; V'
KUWSANI} ~ - -
DIVI_SI<}NA£«.O¥<'F1CE,._.
FOR'i',_BELLARY."~ % '-
7 THE Aséw ,_s:§:x'EcuT:vE"'fiNa;NEER
, .if§.-»iUWs 3. DB; NEAR mavgmaaaa
V-.,__G0§;LE€:E. HOSFET.
sf * ..'z'H--E Bmiicu MANAGER
lNDIA; STATION ROAD,
*-HOSP' RESPONDENTS
V ” _ (BY SR: KW-RAGEAVENDRA RAG, ADV FOR C/R1-4, SR1 Y D
_ VHARSHK, Apv FOR res, sm R RAJAGOPALAN, ADV FOR as AND
‘ am A V1Jh’¥’AKUMAR,ADV FOR R1)
‘T THIS KSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF C-PC AGAINST THE
–..fdU;’JGMEN’I’ ANB DEGREE DT. 29.10.02 PASSED iN
C—._}’~?A.?NO.99/2003 01*} THE FILE OF’ THE A13DL.CIV1L JUDGE
~, (SR.DN.), BELLARY, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
vCONF’IRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE EYI’. 18.9.2001
L
‘n
PASSED IN 08 190.56] 1999 ON THE F’iLE OF THE III ADDL.C{VIL
JUDGE (J£?.DN.}, BELLARY.
COURT {)EL$VEREl3 T HE FOLLOWING:
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS TI-HS
JQQQHENI
The parties to this
compmnuse’ amongst themselves; dgmifi ig of ”
appeal. The compromise cnto1°ixi”~é;1to 3
was accepted by this Court wosdisgiiosed of
by o1fler’VVdMéi:ed.: alleged that the
oontostixtvigo adhered to the terms of the
compmmiso’ é’u::d”a$V application was filed seeking to
< ';Eho_ord¢r doiocEv——l«3;1 1.2003 and mstorc the appeal and
on merits and also to initiate action
agazm" ' H St xtzopondent. The applications were
% "IV.A.Nos.I/06, 11/06 and III/06. This Court by
1' 24.03.2006 mstomd the appeal to file and
by order dated 13.06.2006 this Court also
to issue Show cause notice to the first respondent
V for not oomplying with the terms agneed before this Court.
J;
“0
2. When the matter stood thus, on healing thc ,
cennscl for the parties, it was matioed that am pe1f::0ng=:1 V’
tcrms of compromise the first respondent u
rtxzeivc amount towards the annals
1998 to March 2003 from of
husband and out of the to
the appcflants. This earlier which
lead to the above .’EGiZ£it(;$€I %=..;”f.) £,! or ‘issue of show
calms 1 ” memo dated 17.06.2008, the
learned C5:-mac} No.1 has placed on would
that thr=.V$um « eonstitumg 50%: of the sand’
‘VV’amo1ii;i; I133 “bpcn the appcllaxats by demand dmfl
and 70’?875. The receipt of the dcznand
by the learned counsel for the
‘a.»ppellant $;’;. Considcrizxg this development, the compromise
isnto bctwmn the paras’ 3 in fact, has now been
by the first mspondent and as such, the other
i
“(I
terms of the oompmmiae also is ncc_:_r:ssa 1y V
this case.
3. In that View of the the” sh«_;§w
issued to the first ,w.«;pomi¢ht.%4 the
izmzcrlacutary or-der.3 the pcndency
of the appeal dissolved.
The parties on 13.11.2003
is i:§h.c act in tennaz cf the
;th’c3;n. Further, this appeal
is also» dispbaazi pfxizx tlm compromise entsamd into
4; the appeal stands disposed of with no
<3-1ߢ5:r__a$ ta
Sd/–
Judge