High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Parvatibai vs Smt Itabai on 6 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Parvatibai vs Smt Itabai on 6 January, 2009
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
......... -.....--....~..........._.. .............,.,........., ,.,...w,,..,,,.,,',.,. "H," ,_',_,u'" VI. nnnwninfifl tau" E . 
UUKI

.91: cups': -vs IIwIr'ns1.I1.u Iiruulmlr-vn -w.uswwu-a-.wue~u- 'runs

.71: uuwnl='I|II*|.|-Irnuvn wsvull-w_ e-mnuun q .-wuwwvunns-. VI-II

'SM: zwéaxi x
'=Wf@=sHANKARA§?A GQRAWAR @ PUEARI

1N wag H193 cmuaw 05 KfiRN&TAKA T"="  
CiRCUiT BENCH AT auLaAReaf'
DATED THIS ON THE 6" may O?.JENU§R§ ?§C§j

&uhoR57A: T"

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE $.N§'K3saAvA§3gAzANA

c.R.P,yo.1e2zé0g8,gcPCy._HVf

1 SMT PARVA?iBAL””* ‘ _ _ ;’V,
WXQ MALLQYYA GOR%W§RW§”9fiJARE
AGE:b:.YR§,vGCC:fi,B.WQEK “”

R!G5TALiKGTIb'””, . ,’W –

REG B:JA9§R ‘~ ;..§paT1TIQNER

gayfisrg: S BHBEBB§LL@_& g g €HAGRSHETTi &
” ‘ V. MSMERAJU,’ RQVQCATES {ABsEmT§:

A§E;332tR$;-0ac§B.H.w0RK
Rffi KAMNAKAT$§ ONE
TALl§OTl:.NdSDEBiHAh

.4_ u’3pNBaRABég
‘”p*WfGV§HANKARAPFA DfifiBEG&R

flGE:5$,¥R3, QC£:fi.H.WURK

TR«g’£L§KoT:

‘*£fQ;B.?.KUMA?AGI

“f-gafiggtgsawgg maaaa
‘.TRL2ROTi, MUQUflBLfiAL

KEXLEE

DH} SBANKREPPA 6{}R?a§i€i’:R {E3 £3i§x.?§3s§%.f£I
ALEEL: 22 YRS, GEES: Pi. B. §’€<JRI<l

Fix' C) TE-£Li§Ti’I ; K£3§I’*iE\§;”~’:KEi’1″1’1 Offij

“”T’,7’i? “i”L_/:,”‘fl’T ME ?¥”??”‘fiT’.1.3§_3’7>3F.”7.
.§..L5….L..3Am;A»A..§…h

-uulu ur nnlwvnwuu-\ -nuun \aUU’Ki’ ‘el’l”- nnnlvnrnnn ‘l’II\€fl’1’\.aiJ\Jlll’ Ur l\l\Kl’ll\il’|l\aF\ fllurl LUUKI Ur’ KAKNAIAKA “i”lfC’5l”l’ CUURTCTF KAR’NATAKA’ HfGH’COUR1

THIS c.a.y. is £0MLN6 on yon ogp§x$” ;a1;
DRY, Tfifi soggy Mébfi THE EQLLUWLNG: ‘=*~ * ‘

,._§_.I..i.’.._§…§.

None appaars to: {he §eti:§oné@ “=’n

2} Oétice has rai$§fi cp§ecfion Eéqarding
maintainabiiity G: this petifiifin,

3) This fieVi$1Qfi7pefiit1§n is tiied under

Sectian 3ilb» bfi_bC7A C, ,RfThé petitioner baa
questidhe¢@tné?£é§ai1ty éhfi correctness 0: the

ordef dated 2fi»i£}2§@J passafi my the Cfivii

Juéqe :s:.§n,;,VMgédeb:nai, in C.Mi$c. No.15

“*,_oi %2QQ4, diéfiissing the said petition filed

y’afidafa§r§@f”IX Rule 9 of C.P.C

“– é3’Aé per Order é5{l}{c} of Code mt Sivii

.u’ ‘PrQcedure, against the order rejecting the
‘éfipiicatian undar Qrder EX Ruie 9 filed ior an

“”©rder satting a$ide the dismissal 0: Suit, an

appeai lleg. The revlsianai powers under

Section 115 0: 6.9.6. gan be 8X&fCiS6d by the

f_,»»”/

\.w’

uvuns vr nnnwfl-Inna -nuvn -1.-.m\J£l’l1s’I-\*llff:!\!”Il§’l”I§n’$Ftfl¥9s–l’II1Dl’I’-\a\I\J>EF”‘\J!’ I\REWH-“I:-\ll&H fllUH’bUUK”l U?’ NRRNRIAKR “HIV?” CUUR’r’OF KARNRTAKA “‘1-l!GH’COU§fl

High Court oniy against such orders §aj:aj§;2§;r§:’v~.,
which no appeai Lies. in View of “*:._l:1e.’=j;§:a.’«:*:ti»
that against order under r{3’\%AiSion’,.& a.n_A ‘:zppe:-xii I’

is provided under Orcieij 43′

revision petition is not’~méintainab;L.e:L_;

5) AccordingiVy;_zV:M” the action is
upheid . This revisi–:§nf. dismi 53 ed

as not mai;fi;ai§I%1’éable”..