High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Ramavva W/O Bharamappa … vs Iqbalsab S/O Abdulkhadarsab … on 13 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Ramavva W/O Bharamappa … vs Iqbalsab S/O Abdulkhadarsab … on 13 February, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH coum 0? KAmAvaT5v« fl    _

cmcun BENCH AT 'bmHARW'fi_D;v' '  %

DATED was THE 13T"_aAv o;=FeaaWy 

  am: 

HON'8LE MRJUSTICEv:}AOHA'{$§vSF{A§§ATANA6OUDAR

 

.»............WRIT   6

1.

Smt} Ramawa é .

W] ovv.Bharama§)pa 13}%ik:-}.j’g?m’iI*i
Age 4C{years,._Oe[(:».: Pi§)i1s3.eho1d
R/<3 Haiagezfi, Taluk
Ha-vatji DiStIfiC$:; '

% I5A.'_Hoieé1éi9'5f

' 'Nagag§pa ,.S;o Timmappa Bhajanm
~ . 'Aged-.65xye:a1?s, Occ : Nil
V1.32'/'*0 Jaytsmdgar, Dharsvad. ..Petit:ior1er

._{By Sfi T. Patil, Adv.,)

% Iqfioazsab
* ~ " "S/0 Abdu} Kluadarasab Khateeb
» Age 55 years, Occ : KRB Service

R] 0 Halageri, Ranebcnmir Taluk
Haveri District. ..RespoI1dent

(By M/ s. Dharwar Law Associates, Adv.,)

fir _ in
I I V

This Writ Petifion is filed undeezmieies 226' .32;

Constitution of Inclia praying to quash the o1t1ér.<$11' IA": Noll'
dated 14–8–2008 (Anncxure–l))_ passed" the Judge'

(Sr.Dn.), Ranebcnnur in R.A.No.'7"3.[ V2001. "

day, the Court made the following ;

This Writ l:'f31IitiC}I1v(f3('2~§1]'I}§=','A[.($J'1Z1'A}'f"«':.{I"}$f{i.§'13TI3' Iiean'ng this

The agpxgeefiexz §'ee%e1:e..e3:ee.éefiied by the petitioner
under elreeree %9{:~/w.%e%%%"secuon 151 of C.P.C. for
appoi:1tI§fieVnt%o1" to inspect E the

' ' A " ;-'.4&,_:H.

ilaatter Qf is rejected by the Court below

Ab}? E” ‘1:1’31i3?:1_.8I1edvv””‘ifi$I«*der dated 14.8.2003, passed in

Lk%R,A.rée;?3,12GQVe}e.ee~

V___v’I”h§::’~”I5écords disciose that the petitioner has filed

suit f.or-~ iieclalation and injunction. The said suit came

tiismissed. Questioning the same, plaintifl’ has filed

‘ %eej;.*.A.Ne.73/2001 before the Civil Court (Sr.DI1.,),

” Ranebezmur, and in the said appeal, an appiication for

E
‘ ‘E

? L

.3-

appointment of Commissioner is filed for ascertainment of

certain facts of the case.

3. It is relevant to_m1}1ote

C. S.ChatradaJ;nath, learned adviocatee ..’t;l?£tG. ::,r_-4&5

Commissioner before the Qourt; eiroadyi L’

the report. The parties to me__iit§ga%ion allowed
to file applications T of Commissioner

repeatedly, paxftie1;_11a.:’1.yW the facts of the

matter “” fiby ‘iiz*e§i”§ established that the
Commie-siorier appointed for collection of

evidenee. Vitkider _s’2.1eh: iioifeumstances, the Appellate Court

‘ Arejeetedr the application for appointment of

fried by the petitioner.

it writ petition stands dismissed.

Séfe
Image

‘ my