IN THE HEGI-I scum' OF KARNg-érggfi
CIRCUET BENCH AT1'4DHA1éix(Aiii1. ~' 4'
DATED THES THE 20'm 'DA'{'(.fE' ivnarectjfi if _
}BEF0RE
THE HON'BLE MR.. iiss?r:QE A;m*..j.;;:L;_t%zJ,AL
WRIT pETI%15i§;>;$: i§o,§.2b'7?,: (GM--CPC)
BETWEEN: V V
Aged ab9?a2t'v'(0'-.y:;3rs V _ v
(Doe: Pe1;sio:§1e,r V ' ._
R] o; *.§._g;ar£:tz;c1;tt,
Shri. Mahmud" " 4c':i'*;1 V {Id
B€1{'§811Hi"'=5,*.. %
= PETYFIONER
(By Sf i'3 B. Advocate for M] s. A. R. Patil
Assqciates,
~
' .Réprcsc:t1i¢:iT"by the Executive Enfineer
.. " (Smt inzdyavati K., ace?)
1\iL_L. 13; C. £'3«.'° No. 2, Navihaeertha
Bclgraursga
* RESPONDENTS
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitut:ien of India praying to quash the order passed by
the Civii Judge (Sr. D11.) Belgaum in Misc. case No.65/07
did. 22. 1.20109 vide Annexum-G,
This petition coming on,
day, the Court made the foflawfing: _ A ~ ”
Véapfifif.
The mspondcpt a against the
petitioner for zwecovefjr
2. it .ii1:£s suit is dismissed for
non~pm§éc§;i§§£’i’ -~ . pmceedings were
initiated for jwas referred to Lok
Adaiat. Be-ram ih_e ‘z,§1§%j.’Aw.aaa2 é;t, the learned counscz
appearing fog”. the cfisnéented for zestorafion. On
tI,’1t:’j’§:§é22.is conééééihn, the suit is restored. The
01def”p§1$.:§:d’ ;.¢:cv$’i,-: Ikdalat is questioned in the said
.i. mfifi6n. ._ 3
H Th: ieéfited counsci appearing for the petitioner
” the petitioner was not infcrmed about the
V ma’i1§i¥I”‘$%?hen the consent was $33313. fl
.7 V ‘ -,’ ‘ V v V /
4. Appamntly, it is to ba noticed
the vakalat in favour of the <,~o1;;;;1seI, h:::"ha§"a1'1 th.o'Iiise<j
counsel to enter inn) 3. compI'o¥3;nis,e.» Ilcizce'-.1 "
that it is not open for thti'pc__1:ifioiiex_' 'imw t{)"c%.r§nt¢1;d,3 t11Vat«l{),L-is
counsel was not aut}1ozisééiv.. givt:' 'c:1V::1_S.c.§11tVf§for the said'
compromise.
There: ispgo hence the petition
is re}i~:ctcd.§'--».4 " »
A Sd/-