IN THE HIGH coum' 0;: KARNATAKA AT BAN£}£'aL(i}§§§_§3:'.j' : '
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF Novgmasé T'
BEFORE _ %
THE HODFBLE MR. J§IS_TICi§7'V.A:S._BOP.£§H;I§A' " V
WRIT PETITION No.59af5f'j%:2096 (cw
BETWEEN :
5930.70 YEARS '
R/A.N0.5(92, m;gIN;
1 SM'? YASHOM GQWDi~i §§I/(fa. 531 KB $k5G<jwDA
2 A V_£%Hfl1'?.gfXTf{.;$fO AB V GQWDH
A(3ED;4e.§;EAR$" " _
R;A.NO.59£',3RDMA}_N'-ROAD
SA'E}ASHIVA_N:'~.GAR;.B1ii£s§(3ALGRE~8()
3 LATHAL «PU'1TANNA*.D/Q~LLATE A B V GOWDH
AGED.4£i' YEARS '
.. .:R;A;.No.592;v--3Rs MAIN ROAD
- SAD.&SI{IVANAG¥&R, r:3ANGALoRE~30
. _ PETITIONERS
A 'gay$5;-iAT':13§'§.&,.§1A§§AswAM¥ FGR ANANT Mmvmez, ADV.,}
.;.-..._.....
"~$ijHa1*7Iéi;4\NA BHARATHI TRUST
% -:~.:o.34;'cuNN1NeHAM ROAD
"'BANC'tALOR'E~--52, REPBY' ITS
f TRUSTEE B NEENA HEGDE
RESPONDENT
k
a
(By Sri : TJ°.VIVEKANANE§A, ADV. FOR P S MANJUNATH 3
THIS ‘WP. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22740?’-..’_I»’HE
CONSFITUTION 0? H4015. PRAYING TO QUASH THE QRQSRV
12.4.05 PASSED BY THE pamcmu. cm’ own. &;;’__ _
JUDGE IN MISC. NC). 826/O5 VQDE ANX-E.
This Writ Pcfition comm’ g on V’
‘B’group, this day, the Court made “2
ORQER fl’ %
The petitioner is before V;)I’€It’:1′
dated 12.-4,2096 passed “me said
Misccliangaous petitioza Court under
section 24 gr §ze$i1sr¢:§}”g;f’o;1§§;No.2055/01 frerm
the fife 191′ ma ‘v’–{3it3€ Civil Judge (cm No.2) in
Add}. – (SCH No.20), When:
vinending. It was contended by the
subject matter in the 55316″ two suits are
331$} they are to be tried tcrgcther in the
‘ pefitianem herein who am the respondents
petition however opposed the transfer. The trial
” f:’c:;h:a:n+t:iby its mticr clatcti 12.4.2905 has alioww the petition
L
.68
and has dizettteei that O.S.N0.2055/O1 be tra;nsfermd Vi:f.:’>”‘»§t.1:1e
Court, wherein {).S.No.1S5G’7/2000 is pending.
22. The yicvancze ef the pefitio:ri£-E
said order is that the parrties an: td t_’;¥1Aé’3av _’ 11 n
suits arm as such they Jthiss
Iegard, a perusai cf this .§;1IIi€1’T”i}’1:-V’ 110
doubt would indicatc of the
suit, it is also of akmg
with o,s.r~zq..:5;:=:~QV?’;,?’f:>{§.’ ‘fa.c;:;-.”_ti§¢ pefifiener is aggmved
mainly __crcIt:r since the said two suits
cannot the evidence ta be tendered
by f11£?;p{:’I1’i€S’.Vi:¥”€)1′!:VlCiV;’f)€ éefgamtc in each of the cases.
2:3. Lj1n %tr..§s– mégalad, it is to be ciarifuad that the leading of
the passed by the trial (hurt in the
Miscefizixxgéfits Petition would five the impmssion that what
V’ infzcndeti by the trial Gou.rt is to ttansfer the suit. in
“*-ff: o.s:.No.:2055/01 to the com whezrcin the suit in
L
‘4.
O,S.No.15501/2000 is pending. Insofar 33 the transfczr to be
made by the Cgurt, in such a situatiml, there cannot
grievance. To that extent, the 3:11:12: dated _
not call for interference. Hmvevcr, ii: is ”
bath the suits an: pending in the Sam 1:’
of the parties seek ¢::iubbi:3g r::i_” the sA1_J’ii:ss fOI’,V.VI’v°-‘2’b{Z3§(;’IVIIf’iI’H£§ ‘bi’ ,
common evidence or common diéipgisai, it Wonk}-$fiH’;be open
for the petitioner hem’ ‘sié§;}J,:\_.Vteq11¢stVférélubbing
and while daing. Cotgfi-i1fiofi锑i’aised in this petition
would be V’ to oppose such
app}icatio11 V’ S would conmider such
appfieafiufi; objaction to 13¢ put ibrth by
flit-:2
fht:
.g:{g.;;¢:eLVw;iih above: obsezvations and clariiicaticns,
petitiifizi 3%;-:am;:2’a:’i9éV. dispersed of with no order as to casts.
Sdl
Iudqe