IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010, : PRESENT : THE I-IONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PAf17l-ISIS': AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE 'uI3»(3:P.13'L1.:\I'§\'Zz_g:_" 'V MISC .CVL. No.--I.}i023 CF .20].O1;t: MISC .CVL. NO. 1402401? 20.19; ' MISC NO.13990_ OF-.2010 .s S' ESV?'E paIx>'S. REVIEW PEfI'_If"I*IQI»I'_N:'p.2--:s~.1 011? 2.008 Between: Rengzippa Mangalorfi ' V " I ' . Petitioner (Common in all MiSC.Cv1s} '~ _ (By'3'«:SrEi_,flRQngaIjpa ..B_hovi, Party--in»PerS0n) .f':1.J.'(1I"€IIv1'1.1iIIV'.'L1 Ore Co., Ltd., > ' . Respondent
[Common in all MiSC.CvIS)
» n[By._SmI”.. K. Subha Ananthi, for
‘ M,/Si Kasturi Associates]
=i=**>!€**
Misc. Cv1.14023/2010 is filed Under Section 151 of
CPC, praying to condone the delay, in the interest of justice
and equity.
M1’sc.CVl.14024/2010 is filed under section..V’i.s§”1._V_of
CPC, praying to Recall the Order dated 16/07/2010 and to
allow the application, in the interest of justice andlleqttityp’ _
MisC.CVl.13990/2010 is filed….u_nder_–‘.Sebtio:i”’15l. of
CPC, praying for early hearing for reasons ._ stated -an_n’eXed7
affidavit, in the interest ofjustice and eeiiuiéy. ‘ V *”
These Misc Cvls. con:’in’g._V on for Qrdle:rlsA;[tt–his .5day, –. L’
N.K. Patil. J ., made the follouriiig;
.Q_~_.__R
Misc. CVl.14023/§éQ1(l3ll’V’Et:1T1lZl 14024/2010
are filed under 15 Vreyspectiveiy praying
to condone. [days in filing the recalling
application’ order dated 16″ July 2010.
_j;’Miesc.Cvl’.r2010 is filed under Section 151 of
for early hearing of the matter for the
the affidavit, accompanying the said
.q appllicationdx
it .. it ‘ .__When the case is called, the petitioner — party – in-
QE31-son is not present %f anybody has represented him.
if
However, learned counsel appearing for respondent is
present.
After perusal of the aforesaid three applications,
We notice that Misccvl.14023/29:10ifjjpi
lViisc.Cv1.14024/2010 are not in order, th”ers1:11gi1″‘i
Court Rules and Practice. Office hast.
objections. However, the in “person inn,”
the affidavit that he__ is a pperson__an_d due to
financial constraintstlieothe typed copy of
the applications to consider the
mans pass ;’orcie’1’_’s;”‘ ‘”lAccordir1gIy, Office has
posted’. these V’ before the Court for
consideration; V.
it Afte1*..perLisaI’of the office objections and the note
statements made by the petitioner —
party gm.–ir1_–: Qlplerson in the affidavits, we are of the View
that the same cannot be accepted nor is the same
it ‘ope-rrriissihle under the High Court Rules and Practice.
” ~-filing of applications and the accompanying affidavits in
24…/i
the form of manuscript is not acceptable. Hence,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, Misc.CV1.14023/2010 and Misc.CVl.l402’4ff2_G».lO
are liable to be dismissed as not maint.–ainahl’ei:”‘
accordingly they are dismisseciw is it it
reserved to the petitioner– _
appropriate application/s the”
procedure envisaged =’u_nder”the_:’High Cot1″r’t Rules and
Practice, if he is so advisedlorrririeedll’a.ifise;__
In Vie§w”«._Voj.f Cli.smissa’l<. aforesaid two
applications, thelllprayer ghtatin Mi_s'C; CV1. 13990 / 20 1 0
does not survixfe. for; HEHCE. it is
dismissed ashaving lj5eeoi'ne"vinfr"1ictuous.
Sd/–
Judge
Sd/-~
judge