High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Ajmal Mohammad Iliyas Bagwan vs Sri Haji Sameer Haji … on 27 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Ajmal Mohammad Iliyas Bagwan vs Sri Haji Sameer Haji … on 27 August, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
WP8779.fl8

III mm HIGH courrr or mnngrmm
cmcurr amen A1' nmmwm

DATED mrs mm am DAY our AUGUST.  [I '   H

nsronn  M  
mm Hozrnm MR.JU8TICE  "  

 

wnrr pmrrzore xo.s779(2oos:§n5#m--ciéq ~ = V'  

Between:

S1i.Ajma1 Mohammad I1iyas'_Bhagvéan__.V  .. . A'
Ag-326 years, Occ:Business,'" '  R_ E }

R/0 Chimgaonkar Galli, Nipani; _  A
Tal:Chikodi.  V  ~ 

1. Sri.I-iaji Sameniifiiiétji  Bagwan,
Age:   Ocitzflusificsg,
R/0 Chixngaonkar'f}a!Ji,"ipani,
'I'a1:Chikotii. - a  

 '_ Di1Ish_adbiAAJaimM1}.'Bagwan,

 Age: 5'5'3re"az1s, C}cc:Houschold work,

 » ,R»;..o  Galli, Nipani,
   msmmmnm

--  Riindhol, Adv)

 Thisgwgfinton is filed under articles 225 am: 227 of the

.1  VC'r,§12.si:itu.1;§on of India praying to quash the impugned order vide
   by the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nipani on

A"  LA-.NO.9 'in O.S.No.156/2007 dt. 13.05.2003 being iflcgal and

H  'againsét iaw, the application. I.A..No.9 filed by the petitioner be

  VT . V __  and etc.,

2*:/AW



Wi'87'79.08

2

This pefiiion coming on for oniers, this day, the Court
made the following:

_§..§1.'3..D§..F..{

1. The respondents have filed IA--I] 2008 for   V K

writ petition.

2. At the request of petitioner’s ._t1:1e

adjoumed to today to enable him to $ub;§§j,s=,§~.ions.” ”

is not present in the court today.

3. This writ petition by the order.

dated 13.33′;26a3j;pn”‘ii;41x”ig–3o.s;%1\zc;.3ie5/2007 rejecting the

applicationioof thg’ for appointment of the

Commissioner. L 2 _V

” the respondents submits that the

wiit. “i3otrn1aintaiaable in vmr of the fact that the

the schedule property by virtue of 5:

~ deed dated 31.03.2003 and handed over the

of the property in fiavour of the purchasem.

H the petition has been filed by the petifimner afier the

deed is efibcted and that byvirtue ofthe said sale deed,

Q€z..~–~

WI’8′?79.G8

the suit filed by the petitioner itselfis not maimainame.

produced the Extract Form of the Property

with a memo dated 25.08.2008 11) ‘M

therefore prays that this writ

exemplary costs.

5. In View of the sale deed th e he has
no locus standi to norHt<V) maintain
the application bcfozt: this writ
Pfitition is

6. Having, pctimncr is directed

to pay coéigs of $5 Registrar, High Court of

Karnataka and’ a cfiect before the trial’ Court.

;_’j’77.’ tg~,-:51 to proceed with the suit in

V V8, Officc séhd a copy of this order to the petitioner.

sdl*
Judge