H Rudramurthy vs Hayavadana Hatwar on 27 May, 2009

E WP. }240G!09

IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAKA, BANGALQ}?_i§'  . n

QATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 200?: A 7  

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE H.N.NAGAg§QHA:§:3As %  

WRIT PETITION NO:124€V)O'22m§}m09 tGM4cPg%"%' L%%  k

H RUIf)RAMUR'fi~IY

s/0 H%MUR:g;EP33A%  
AGRICULTUREST  _ * _% %
R/OF '*7LALA:GE. ~   %
DAVANIEGERE' TALUK ~ "  
AND DIS'I'R_I()',1' Q 2   '

 V ' .   PEPFFIONER

(i3§'VsE1%:§B?41*o*rAp,  FOR
B'-SPS Assccmgsy

 V: ~zé1AYAVADANA HATWAR

  'SjC~R.AMAC}~1ANDRA HATWAR
  R;/AT mom N0 2185/ 1, am MAIN
2 ~ %%s*rH moss, MCC A BLOCK
 DAVANAGERE
0*"""'"



2 W.P.l240Gi€)9

2 H MURIGAPPA

S/O ANAJI SIDDALINGAPTPA

AGED 72 YEARS   
RETIRED AGRICULTURAL  

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

R/OR HADADI VILLAGE    '  *
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND r}1m1(,:'1'RR A  "

 

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FERLEB _.UN_I3ER ARTICLES
226 & 2227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN. Q12' "1NDIA_"PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUG-RED C)RDER  PASSED BY
THE) II ADDL.  [sR.DN} UAVANAGER, IN
O.S.NO.53/O7,  AS'---.  'P1'-38  "-AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION FILER  THE' ?1«*m'10:~IER UNDER ORDER
IRULE 10(2)"OF'TIi.iE C%;)DE~.QR CIVIL' PROCEDURE.

This @titidn  Run for prehmmaIy' hearing
this day, thg: Cou;rtV_1ins1ci*c the'f'o1l0Wing:-

Thfl4§'vfII'§1;~'I:I'¢:"5AfiV.)0I1d6I}t filed a suit against the second

_.._A'_;ggs;5%t>x;dent" V. O.S.No.53/2007 far decree of specific

V   of an agreement cef saie dated 26.03.2003. In

 ..,QiS.No.53/200? the petitioner filed an application

V. "--«'V.AVti11cV1ér Order 1 Rule 10 CPO to come on record as additional

d~"~""



3 WP. i24(}(}iE)9

defendant on the gound that he is having a share inV_ti_1e

plaint schedule property. Under the impugned order, =.

trial Court dismissed the application filed by  

on the ground that he is not a pmper"a31ti   V

Hence this writ petition.

2. Admittedly, the _suit  
of an agreement of sale  ..:'*i'I.1e contracma}
rights between the' E the second
respondent wfl} / 2007. Any decree

passed in the his not binding on the
petitioner’ his interest. Therefore, no
to the petitioner under the

fmd no justifiable grdund to interfere

i”‘e-with order. Accordingly, the petition is

. _. iimfeby dismieised without reference to the respondents.

,_ §u&§é

Sdié