High Court Karnataka High Court

Rajan S/O Divakar Naik vs Abdul Shukur Abdul Razak Shaikh on 16 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Rajan S/O Divakar Naik vs Abdul Shukur Abdul Razak Shaikh on 16 April, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
'W? No.31'23'2/2008

: 1 :
IN TIE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED ms THE 16"' DAY OF Am.   :  " 
Bfioms:  _  "
'r1mHoN*BLEw11.J1Is11<;#r--mJI*r    é
WRIIPEIIIQON No.3123fi;r20O-S     

BETWEEN: * - V " 

RAJAN

S,/ODIVAKARNAIR,   __  

AGE:48 YEARS,OCC:CON"1'R2'+CT(--_)R    *-

RIO AYYAPPANAGAR VH.L1-XGE,    V V
HUBLIROAD,S]RSI, '- _ 5 ~   _
UTTARKANNADA'D1STRIC'l";"-.."A * p  ...PI~3'I'I"I'IONER

(BY J
SRLM.K_YA.\_&AN.UR,'ADV)_ 

Amp: s}zI3KUi{AF3D1JL RAZAK SHAEXH

 
, 'AGEA5 'IEARS, OOCIBUSINESSMAN,
 V210 NEEJARUNAGAR, sums:
  DISTRICT. ..RI£SPONDm\I'1'

 MZS;EIE GflE, NEERALGI AND PATIL, AIDV)
"  ?E'I'I'i'ION IS mm ummz ARTECLES 226 AND 227 OF

"   CONSTTTUYION OF INBIA PRAYBQG TO QUASH THE IIVIPUGNED

 '  D'I'.3(}, 10.2008 PASSEI) BYTHE LEARNED CIVE. IUDGE (JRDN)
'_S3RASI IN 03 NO.}1?J2001 WHICH IS MARI% AS  ~A

.. H'  WHICE ES PASSED AS PER 'IRE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE LEARNEI)
" » ._ ..CIVIL IUDGE (SRDN) SIRASI ON 01.16.2008 EIRANOESIEUOG WEHCH IS

 AS  --B IN SO FARAS DIRBCTING THE TRANSFER
OF THE  G AMOUN'§' Dl£*Zi'OSI'i'ED IN C.C.D IN LOWER
COURT AND HNT 30 F AR. AS ORDERING THAT TIE PARTY WHO
SUCCXS IN THE SUIT IS EN'i'I'I'LE}:) TO THE AMOUNT SO



wp No.31232/2008

: 2 :
DHOSITED SUBJECT TO TIE ORDER OF THE LOWER COHRT IS
CON  AND ETC, .  __

THIS PETTITGN CO1\mTG ON FOR  ARY  31
'B' GROUP, THIS BAY, THE CGURT MADE TIE FOLLOW%?G_; ,  L"  '_ A' 

1. The petitioner and the  9
partnership which uttixnatcly zan  
An acrimony between the;  
in filing the suit   The

parmcrship would    ':3. vziieo theater.

Dunn' 31:11.3.    application is fikd under
01dcr '3_9"§§uk: 1"  cm restraining the respondent

herein epe:~et§eg” sand’ video theater. Init1a’ ny ad

yantcd but later on vacated. The

» .fi§ras’«:iii:stioned in an appeal by the petitioner. The

the application in part inasmuch as

respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.2,0(}O[- per

3 ‘week the trial court. The said ozdcr was questioned both

the petitioner as we}! as respondent bcibrc this Court in

” V’ ‘””f;Wo revision pctitinns. During the pcndcncy of these. two

revision pcfitions, the amount was increased fmm

/.

Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,D0()/- per week pending disposal of the %

W? 930.3123?/2008

revision petitions. Eventually, both the

were disposed of directing the respendentio’ sziizir

of Rs.3,000/– per week as bgggggg’ em’

filed by the petitioner was dismissciieeii the Vtigg’ ,

suit itscn’ was not wuamiof of the
Partnership Deed as petitioner
has filed an appeal inM%§2;-1;,%1~*;:>§2$/ the file of Civil
Judge (Sr.D;;1§)1AA:;:je§§it proceedings, an
applicatioii<V'i1ifflII?I:'.'Vie':i'fi1e§i":ii3.ruzi:i1e.=xei;s;)6i1dent for withtirawal of
the Inciiieiitelly, it has to be noticed
ef the petitioner was permitted

to xvit_11draiv 0611.33,-*1 aim: fnom time to time. The relief in

'~ _ §v§1s.,e_to the remaining amount in deposit.

L' balance of amount. The said application was

'serif te W ma!' court by the Appellate Court for

adjiidieaifien. The learned trial Judge has granted the
u V' » ejjplicaiion and has permitted the respondent to withdraw
Z "amount in deposit but hcswever subject to the respondent

"furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The

/
1'

1
|

WP No.3 I232/2008

said order is questioned in this writ petition

is produced at Axmexure-A.

2. Mr.D.B.Kari.gar, learned u

petitioner would vehemcntljr eejnfendhvthat

is in deposit legitimately bgzesfiga the”‘pc1iti«:;ner. He
submits that the is his share.

Hence, the permitting the
I’€Sp0I1dCII;.*.«’§’§3′ afler furnishing a
passed by this court in

the Ietfisifln

3. __Mr.K;P. counsel Ibr the respondent

that tcly the petitioner succeeds in the

émeunt would be safe inasmuch as the trial

him to furnish the security. Hence,

‘ . _ jusfifieie ozder.

I have perused the impugned curler passed by the

trial Judge. Apparently, it is a harmless order

permitting the respondent to Withdraw the amount. indeed,

it has to be noticed that the right of the petitioner is also

1,

“*-¢w..

a

WP 930.3123?/2008
: 5 :
required to be safeguanled in the event he suoeeedejn the

appeal. Keeping the interest of both the petitioner’

respondent in mind, if the order passed by

Judge is modified directing the reepo1;dez:§t.'{ed’

guarantee to the amount in depdsit lfiefdie

would meet the ends of juefzice. Itddieflsfiy the-L’

respondent is requi1’ed__ to alive
pending disposal of tV}1e..’é1ppe;aL%.;_» the following
order is V

bank guarartee to the
‘ V. _v the respondent fi1m’1s11es the

bank guarazztee shailbe kept a1xve’

:_di§;’3:£ea§of R.A.1’~Io.28/2006 The respondent shall

steps to recover the armum from the

finality.

2 VT Petition stands disposed ofaccadingly. r

Sd/-‘ %
Iudqe

Jm/~