IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE'. DATED THIS THE 2 7m DAY OF NOVEMBER L' BEFORE THE HONBLE MIJUSTICET AJIT V WRIT PETITION No.34519 61?' 2.Q9(C¥Z»"} CI5,Ql ' BETWEEN: 1. Sri A.M.Chand_fashek2II', S / 0 Muniswamappa, -.__ f Aged about 52 years. 2. SII}.1Z.C}:1iI11"1ElI.v1"¢f.AIg1'Ei*-,_ D /0 Late MtI_nis1Wa.IIn.Va'ppa, Aged abmgltfl _ Both thevIresI--d.Ir:;g afii: " AV AgrahaI'é1nVii1Iage-" _ " I » " Ye1ahanka.;~H0bIi, ' , Bangalore North 'Ia.1Ii1;; . ...PETI'I'IONERS _ (Sri P".$f§fishnap}5a,.V_AI:iv.}: SII;.I;.VRa.IIIvéiI'1j'ic1I1aIi'1'ma, -- W/0ANaray3n"a,ppa, -D/0 Late Anjanappa, -I .. j; v Agged abé1.1_t3' 55 ye ars * 'Ii;/ma=I~:osaha1Iy»vI11age, -I.-:?:angaIore North Taluk. ...RESPONDENT
action or the nature of the suit. He has also found that.
whatever the right accrued to the defendant is notlctalien
away and it does not set up a new case.
2. Mr.Krishnappa, learned
defendants submits that the, application isllplrgrioved
the matter is set down for arguinpeiits. it He:
that the amended does not permit
applications to be filed set down for
arguments.
3.v”llll;1l&V,;;i ‘impugned order. Insofar as the
applicability._of provisions to a proceedings of
this naturerit to’V-be’–.notinced that the suit is instituted in
the ‘fhe”‘ainending Act excludes applicability of
Rule 17 to the suits which are instituted
prior__to ainendrnent of Code of Civil Procedure.
2 if fiaving regard to these facts, I am of the View that
said contention is to be rejected. Insofar as the other
Kr