High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Kallavva W/O Subraikochari vs Shri Kadappa on 2 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Kallavva W/O Subraikochari vs Shri Kadappa on 2 March, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar


WP 251017196 {pf 293′?

IM me HEGH Comm” 9? KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAQ__ f -..V_ %

DATE9 ‘rs-as THE 2*” DAY?;.CI “F~”»ff4A§2CI_H

BE:-“Q-as

THE HQWBLE fv§R.3US”i”‘I{2E Mieéiaw sHA:x:m::AG7Qu5AR
wax? PE:”ITIo£\é.fNn,7;i9e,%2’09§?.f(;3M~c?c 3

BETWEEN: V

Smt. Kaiiavva,’~V.’ ~ _
W/c Subrai Kocéwrig . ‘ ”

Age: 84 y%e[ar’s,_”” ” _ _

Occz Hc;Puse’h’6!.df.wor§<,' .
R/e Bas.:_awa*d-V59V1'309,.T ' –
Talu k: Hukkeri, Ebistff ~5ei'g__a"u ?ET'ITIG?~éER

(By S:fi_._ B.S;'i(~a{i1a£ef; Advbfiéze)

._ A. H …..

V’ {nether Ba sawa Hsier

” ._A;g_e: fi’:a§9_r,’~gI§Cc: service,
we Bastaa~ga@-591309,
Ta”§2;¥<;'–.}-Iuvkkeri, Dist: Belgaum,
?=iow'~at':near Fence Statiors,

4 " AA 5-.1z;4kke[ri (caliing himself as Kadappa
fiagappa Bastawad)

V. — 2. ;5hri Kadappa Subrai Kocfiari;
" "Age: majcr, OCC: Service,

we Bastawad – 591399,
Taiukt Hukeri,
met: Beigaum.

WP N037196 0f2O0′}’
:’ 2 :

3. Shri Tukaram Subrai Kocharé,
Age: major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/0 Bastawaci – 593.309,
Taiuk: Hukeri,
aist: Belgaum.

4. Shri Udaikumar Kadappa Bastaw.ad,:.._r 1 V
Age: major, Occ: Agricuiture, ‘ ‘
R/o Bastawad-591309, ‘
Taiuk: Hukeri,
Dist: Beigaum.

5. Shri Vijayakumar Kac§’§_”g;ep_a
Age: major, Gcc: Agriculiureg’ ” –.

R/0 Bastawaé-S913E39.,. ‘ ‘V
Taluk: HukarE.,~_ _,
Dist: Baiga;3_m.£:11r’r’r’ _

6. Shr*%VS’a’£éj’ee*§*kur§7€3’r Kadfappa Béstawad,
Agei’–._ma;’ar, O-:–.~.’V*..:_v figrié-r;t}itu:*e,
R/o Bastawad«59i309,f-

Taiuk: Hukari,” ‘ ‘

Disi;:_ Be£g”a:.zm. _ .J’-{ESFONDENTS
= «..(Byv-Sri. ;_R:avi_ AS.BAé’ii’i.th.e éefendant no.1 to raise iegai meas from para 9 to 13
_ 65 the? proposed addétionai written statement is concerned

passed by the Eeameé Civii Judge (S::,Dr:.) Hukkari in
“Qf’.$.No.82/2803 nircscfuced at Armexure~G.

This wrét petition coming an for preiéménary hearing
in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the foiiowing:

{A/\

‘V33′? N03? 39% e3f2G{3’?

QRSER

By the impugned order, the Court beisw has_4va.§_E§3.§§se;1

the éefendant to we addéticmai written state:n%é%ét””b§*§?:.$§:a¥’a’:f._ .

as ii: reiates is paragraphs 9 to 13 age>;encé3%:1’e;’§:.’_f%’§%’e ;€’.’€};v§}”yf< "'

cf the addétécnw written statéme§_§tTA.3&3 ‘E::_ para 10, the

defendant p£aads~.that :t.%;*e s}g;j3tV’§3_’=:r;_é§ rri§f:n’téinab§e as the

Ends fi._iJeSt§é:}”v..:a f”€%?’¢”n§%-§*§_8′?’k§’ mam %arsd$. Se aisa, $52

parag:*a§%éz:-: _:12 vézézf 31.513, .-§§%’.e C§:e€enéa%2% has raised qzzestéafé

V cf r*:Q;§§–Taaymen’i ..<; §{aée¢=_–uate gcurt fees, etc.

§'€rc{:ji'a«–..vthe afsrerrzentécned, $4: is séear tfiat tkse

§§efé:}V;§AaV'r:%;&"'_§#3§'§§s"te 'take certaéa Eegai pieas if': the written

_ statémezéé; 'v"¥:'§2eugh the pieadifigs need not contain t?:e

V. .L,%'ega%4$§éas, is my cmmifiared amnion, interest of _}'ust¥ce

.é§i_i§"'b%é met, %f the defenéant is permitted is raise Siifih

T 'z:6?atentic3ns. No harm er ifijastice wifi be caused t0 the

" yiaiatiff if the addétiorsaé written statement ta the

– ,1
tr’ %_,

WP N0.”?§§é of 20%’?

aforementicned extent :5 permitted to be fiéed. Hence, this

Court does net prefer to éntervene in the: impugned

Petition faiis. Dismissed. However, it is e_:3–;4V.é’:’*’:4A:fé§§f.’/tfhfaf’ .

piaintiff to recalt the witnesses exa_m.in_e d :15″§1E*s§’.’§2éts~av%’f.VVas “‘ V

aiso it is open for the piaintiffs to tea: fa_?ci&itiéra_é’i~

if needed.

Km?’