:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14*' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJ}\:L V E' WRIT PETITION No.64978/;2Aeo.9'(QM'_ér§é¢j='T;E BETWEEN: 1.
Smt. Nelavva, _
W/0 Hanumantappa Kareidi
@ Kempanavar, age 64 ‘
occ: household wcirk’, E’ V
1″/0 Soodembi, Tq.”‘Byadgi, ‘,§)’i’.st.”‘*H’ayer,i.
2. Smt. Lallitamma, – ‘
W/0 Y.B.;’v”aséjnthakL3mar,W. _
Age 45..yrs. (doc: househoid work,”
R/0 1’€§and’i”taifrt:._Ta.1;fjI~iéi’1’ihar;-_ E
Dist. Dvaavaxigcre. _ ~ A’
“” – ‘*= ‘ PETITIONERS
(By Sri. Mv;..H’.Pau1;-A&:x}’.;._
Mah.’e:sh,’S_/0 Rudravva Kusabur
‘ V. Ka_radi Kcmpanavar,
. -.ag&é: V35″-.yvear’s,-vocc: agriculture,
I RV/0 Sooflgerflbi, Tq. Byadgi,
‘Dist,__vH3.v.eri.
‘ TSr1rt’.;Kama1avva,
“D./0 Rudravva Kusabur,
” –.@.’Karadi Kempanavar,
age 32 years, occ: hOus{-zhold work,
R/0 Soodembi, Tq. Byadgi,
Dist. Haveri.
3. Smt. Rudravva,
D/0 lrappa Kusabur,
@ Karadi @= Kempanavar,
age 60 years, oce: household work,
R/o Soodembi, Tq. Byadgi,
Dist. Haveri. ” i.-
. REsPoNI>_E:NTs””-.
(By Sri. Praveen Kumar G. Kuikarni, Adv. forres,pe.r_1deVhts)
This Writ Petition is filed under AArt1ji:le.s a’n’d_22,7p
of the Constitution of India praying to setaside uthe. ordef«.oh–..
I.A.NO.\/El at Ar1r1exure–C dated’ 20/O7/?<0O9,VOi*1'.th€ life of
the Civii Judge(Jr.Dr1.) Byadgi m__O._S.NO';68/"2003 "
This Writ Petition,coming—015;-foi-~..ordeI's,'tlflisiiday, the
Court made the followingfp "
Even tVh;oL1l«gt~1i_the–ifrtatteifli is i’liS’ie’d for orders, with
conseiit, is finalidisposal.
The .p€tition.eifs””are the plaintiffs. Suit is
filed ,forppartitioi1i and separate possession. In the said
.l”e-Liit”, iideifetiidants and S were placed exparte. Ari
for setting aside the said order. The
}eai”ir1ed.__’tii.ai’ Judge has allowed the said application. As
iiiiagainstwivhich, the petitionersmplaintiffs are before this
Ii
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the defendants werevppilaeed
exparte on 20/06/2003 and an app1ication__forese-ttin;£_
aside the same is med on 02/07/2909 and is
allowed on 20/07/2009. Hence,?._he:”suibrnitsithatV:the’r:e_*i
is delay of over six years infiliilg the’v-applioatiein«seeking
to set aside the order p1acingp_t.h:ern’e;-cpartey.__
4e Theilie *eear:”y1éditeeieéilriifel responaeme
defendants reason beyond
their able appear and file their
Written’._State111:eriVfi”_’:e:it oontended that the name of
the p_aItieis”*§*a’s4 ‘wrongly.
I have perused the impugned order.
it is rio'”doubt true that the learned triai
npofifiassigned reason as to why he proposed to
the factithat it is a suit for partition and discretion has
ailow thephapplication. Nevertheiess, having regard to