High Court Karnataka High Court

T.Venkatarayappa vs Sri.T.Anjinappa on 9 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
T.Venkatarayappa vs Sri.T.Anjinappa on 9 December, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
IR 'TIE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT 

Hm nonmm I§m.JUS'Z£'ICE  '  

DATED rms TI-IE 9:1» ms? or DECEMBER~~3:fG§§j_S} ..' " 

BEFORE

gr__:z11* Pmmon Ho. 27446 ck X 2909 (Gze.zjct*     PETITIONER

(BY S133 S"vISg%$.»fE%éf§a?A.§>A;:AH,  AI)\;?0cATE )

AND :

1

sR:.'f'miJ'INA:?P;:;_" 
5:530 LATE} TFEEMMALXH

 "A. ,_ABc>U*:*v--.r34 'YEARS,

 R/Ni' TMADARAKALLU VILLAGE

 " -~KA'{'I§IGAN-AHALLI POST
%  Crilix'-'--TAMA35Ti TALUK,
2 "K()LAR'j_§f}§STRICT.

i_2

"Sm" FAPANNA

S] {:3 "LATE THIMMALAI-i

v A' ' 54331:) aamrr 59 YEARS,
*  R/AT IvLmA1~w<:ALLU VILLAGE

KATHIGANEKHALLI P0 ST

€HII\ETAl'a!£ANi TALUK,
KGLAR D{S'I'RIC'i'.

6



3 SR} KRISHNAPPA
S] O LATE T§~IiI%=iMAiAH
AGED 59 YEARS,
RIAT MADARAKALLU VILLAGE
KATHIGANAHALLI POST
CHINTAMANI TALSK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.

4 3121 VENAKTESHAPPA  
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,  "
AGEE) 49 YEARS,  R
R/AT MADARAKALLU VTELLAGSE "
;<m'H1GANAHALLI«.P0s1?_  =  

CHINTAMANI TALUK,-1 %  
KOLAR IL)iS"I'_RICT.,~~--   A 
    "'v,.j;~.gE$fl?ONDENTS

THIS w%r<r;*..§»'.é; UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 221.0'? "SHE CC)§$STE'$'{JTi§N OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUA':?3E{ -._T'}E-IE '*+;;3RDE:R PAS:'S'EQ 33:' THE} H(}N'BLE
ADDITIQNAI4 "<::.vz;, {?JR.DIVN.} AND J.M.P'.C.,
CHINTAMANE, '1N'Q%;A3.N€3;J'1+3;§/2004 PASSED ON 0.A.No.
XIII, mm 2.5.08.£}9.Pi?:'_ODU«{3ED AT ANm:x»A TO THE WRIT

PETITION.

-  _ %'}%:§§IiS'  "WRIT H %%%% i'3E'm1GN COMING 0:»: FOR
rpRE::;::y::1s;A:2f:*%. "HEARING THIS DAY, THE-- ceum'

{:1}3;LrvE:':x**;3?:}L1j1'*;»i';'=;.-FQLLoV:1iNG:»

ORDER

x _ ‘I’1éi;s– tpetition is ffifid by the giaintjfi’ against me

j :1d_gm3fit in a suit for partifien seeking to amcmd the

‘::’_4’1mve.§1smements 01′ the iand Shawn in the schedule to the

jtfilaint. An applicatian for amendment has bean fiieci at

the stagé when the matter is setwdawrx for fin:-ad

ff}

.3

arguments on merits. The trial Court has r§§c::¢t,¢d.V_ the

applicatitm apparently’ having regard to the iiété

which such an amendment is »${>>11ght.'”””t::’_iS'”‘n{mz the’ » _

apprehension of the plaintiff that 391?}.

account of incorrect n3t:a::1L_11*z4;;:neI1*£:%’. of t1’i531§:gt:1d..Eiaving.L’

been shown and t.t_1€1’*tj§«* is the piaintiif {:0 zgge at the timfi of final

4

arguments, if there is any 1211356 in I;1enté::§1″;j:§j;g”‘–ti16
correezrt extaflt.

KGR*