High Court Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka Co-Operative Hand … vs Sri D Vrushabendra Kumar on 13 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Co-Operative Hand … vs Sri D Vrushabendra Kumar on 13 December, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13"' DAY OF DECEMBER, 2OII.Ifi,_

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.I/ENUGQP.A,i;[1Iw.G(§.WDAI"  

WRIT PETITION NO.34822:/2OIO 

BETWEEN:

1 THE KARNATAKA CO--OPER}5;TIVE HAND-LLOOVM I ,
WEAVERS FEDERATION LIM.ITED_  "  
REPRESENTED BY ITS MA«NAINC._DIRE,CTOR

SR1 K P CHANNEGOwD.A  1, ;  ..
NEKAR BHAVAN No.49,  =   
MODEL HOUSE STREET.j:EASAvANG_UD'I;;"

BANGALQF<'E:S~500é34 '   

2 THE SA'LES.,r§éIA:§I,.AGER.._T _
KAvERILA_N;D LOOM,  ._ ' I
v_.v.--R_OAD   
 
 * I   ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI C.N;.I§ESI-IAYAVMIJRTHY, FOR M/S. KLK LAW
ASSOCIATES, "ADvS..3* '

 CSRI,D'.\_/Ru:SNABE"NDRA KUMAR

S,/_o~ '.LAT'E .N_;v.D HARANAR PA
AGE D ABOIIEEO YEARS
R/AT"--.NOg1 126', 15"" CROSS,

 ASHONNAIISAR,

I ' " " -- .. V "MAN DYA" CITY.

 _"(SY».S.RI D.R.SUNDARESHA, ADV.)

.. RESPONDENT

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

“AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

Ix.)

QUASH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CEVIL JUDGE
(JR.Di\l.) MANDYA ON I.A. IN O.S.l\iO.545/2009 DATED
23.9.2010 AT ANNEXURE–E AND ALLOW THE I.A. UNDER ORDER
26, RULE 9, READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE_rOE”CIV.IL
PROCEDURE FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY.iiEEA-aiixifif
IN *5′ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE~rO.LLOWzNGA:-

.9..B..Q..|.5_R

Respondent has fiiedi03.5.545/2009i”V:’a§;§i.n,stthe

petitioners to pass a decree of_vf_eje:ctnj_ent.”i’nTréjgpefct of the
plaint scheduie premises}n’d’é-ifoij’cho’i’ss’eij>uential reliefs. By
filing written state-ment,-ithie::’pet-itioners contested the
suit. Trial iease agreement
between measurement of the
premises The evidence has been
recorciedAin:_ttiev’sVuit:”..VA’ _

2″. After “cQrnpietion of the trial, an application was

:filrr3ClA”seei<AiiTg"appointment of Commissioner to measure the

A'sui't'_pre'rni's.es su bmit report.

;:'~i._"L;:earned counsel for the petitioners was directed to

"Linsi:r'u«Act the petitioners to measure the plinth area of the

suéit premises and state the actual measurement of the

\)

I/-'

, x

premises. Matter was passed over to ascertain the

measurement. Learned counsel is not in a p0sVitr§.on._Vto

obtain instructions from the petitioners and sta_t;e"th'e _

piinth area of the premises. The petiti_o~ne.r.:fj}<no~i2§:s.Athe

exact area in its occupation.

4. In view of’ the avaiia_V:tv5’i%.ity of” e_vid_envc:e”‘:._ori”‘record ” V

which the Triai Court can appireciategtheriei”is._,no..’§need for
appointment of the “”C’ornrh_i_sfsion.e’rf_ _conduct locai
inspection. The” Trial:'”Cour:t passing the
impugned o.rd’er_. ” i’

petition is devoid of merit and

shail stand

_; ‘No,costs;” .. V’ ‘i

….. Sdf”

JUDGE