Rudrappa vs Giriyappa S/O Late Rangappa on 4 November, 2009

R.P.N0.4~63/2009 & MISC.CVL.19873/2009
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE H.G.RAME$.r.§   '  "  *' 

REVIEW PETITION No.45;/2oo9'* » C;  -if ~
3: MISC. cum. 19373/2.955  * V "
IN R.S.A No.1252/2Gng%%
BETWEEN: 'V  V

1.

Rudrappa,
S/0. late Kenchappa, :

Aged About 55 years, _ ‘

2. Giriyappaj .

S/0. 1ate%1-Kegachappa, ”
Aged a.bout_ 53′.ye§i1′.s,

3. Gurum§i1″..t_1iy, ‘ . A _
S/0. late Kexflchappa’,
Agediabgut 50» years, ‘

‘ V aaqé iturists.

V0: Uppa2j1’_gef1ah’3:11i,

Talgfa’-HQb’1L ._ ~. ~

Holaiigére

Chitraaurga mstrict

.. f_j: .,Pin–577 PETITIONERS

«.(B%§’z4 sfi.’3;a.R.Nagara;a, Adv.)

R.P.N0.-463/2009 <31 MISC.CVL.19873/2009

2

AND:

1. Curiyappa.

S/o. late Rangappa.

Aged about 52 years,

2. Ragappa, S/o. late Rangappa,
Aged about 50 years,

3. Chandrappa,
S/o. late Rangappa,
Aged about 48 years,

4. Lokesh, S/o. Rudrap’p_a;-._
Aged about 30 years, A’ A
All are Agricu1turists_, ;
R/0. Uppar1genaha}?..}.i,V
Talya Hob1i,HoEa.1kere TaI__x;1__k,=.._ >
Chitradurga ‘Qisf.-_V;”. ._ A
Pin–577

ThisReview’i5etitiori°isifiied under Order 47 Rule 1
of CPC, prayingfor review of the Order dated 7 .10.2009
passed, in RSA N0.,1’,252/2009, on the fiie of the I-Ion’bIe

4., ‘High Cjourt of Karnataka, Bangalore.

__ » u/s 151 of CPC praying to stay the
operatidorifandd*e;;§:cution of judgment dtd.07.10.2009 in
R.S-.A;-No.l’2E”:2/’g2’009 passed by this -Horfble Court and

irupugned.~j~ud’gment and decree dtd 25.8.2009 passed by
‘the leariied’ Civil Judge {Sr.Dr1.) at I-Iolalkere in

-« i.T”–.R;A.No.68__,-” 2005 and date 30.07 .2005 passed by the
learned Add}. Civil}. Judge (Jr. Du.) at I-Ioialkere in
.O;.,S’.No.143/2000.

RP and Mise.Cv£ coming on for admission, this

2′ ‘bday, the Court delivered the fo11owing:~

l7{.P.N0.4f)’l:i/ZUU9 (S1 ME5C.CVL. l9&$73/ZUUEI

J
0 R D E R
Heard. N0 ground for review of the judgment dated
07.10.2009 passed in Regular Second Appeal

N0.1252/2009. The Review Petition is accordingly

dismissed. In view of dismissal of the revieW.«.peti;tie’n.VV”

Misc. Civil 19873/2009 filed for interim stay_?.silsQ’

dismissed.

Review petition dismissed;-….V’ _ . ‘V

bnv/Atai: