High Court Karnataka High Court

Mrs Naseema Begum vs Mr Abdul Basith Khan on 8 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mrs Naseema Begum vs Mr Abdul Basith Khan on 8 June, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan


at THE man oovm’ 01-‘ KARMTAKA AT mnmmns
mmn mm rm 3’!!! may or JIIIIE

BETWEEN:

ms zmmmmsaevm
Aaznanomfse yams
1310 mm
RIAT no 84! 1,331′ $3033.
BROAIJWAYS’.’.’.,fl _

9
%acm.> mares
siommy ‘A.BJ3i1i.2.I”L-RAIflM KHAN
R;A’rHo%a4i%1,T%%z.sT cnoss.
Baoanwmr st’, rm-mummm

– % k %.aez:n52 mans
A « %%jw’;€;;§’x §**%é.€£%§~>§ §€s%W§fiJ§’£>%§%& W€l”:%§*~§ Q? W»m%3%€&”§!fi§€;$% §4§é%%<'§ iIZ€{'Tfi+'&§§%"%"' §£§W%am:'$m«:5rz §*§§%?§§-E Q

$4
'*2
$9
M
2%
21??

-ms’

rmnommm nmmsrxcm v..m¢::._ f”, max’ [ %A ‘ ».

aé aw we 2,» W 5:’ W: »:e M am-2»’xm W3′? M %*x.é'<%;£?K$i 30% % 1% .\';%§*'& é &,L'?g§ 3% %'?§ ii}? 3?: Li? Nfivffix 34.1% H E Q M Q? Q WE Q} 5 gfifi mfljgm mg §- M {T 'if? Q' Ea wig §"§.4?§\?& KW. H

6

IR SIRAJEDDBV
AGED 33YEARS
SI 0 LATE me MIWA AI-llfiflat}

‘@flJBHM€

RIAT H016, “

smvamm HQJSE ROAD

BANGALCRE ‘

(BY3RIKNARNAHA,ADV.) ”

Q2

1

LmABmLamrH%K_HAu%%%A%%%
Acemaaomfsrvsafls
FIAT 3.0 33

%s;o%%LA*1*a: KHAN

RIRTVHQVEB VILLAGE

‘ KI-IAN AGED 51 YEARS
_’ .R!&’–E N0 % SULAWLE VILLAGE

KHAHAGED 47 moms

‘%v_’9I0mml\R ImAH

H RIAT KO % E VIILAGE

HOSAIUI’E’DQ
DET

MRRAHATHJANAGEDWYEARS
S[0I.A’I’E Bm KHfl
RIATHO 28§IIAmLE VHLAGE
H TQ

%’I’

6 MRSAK’I’HARs1&HAGED 43 YE-A%
BIC} LATE MR MAI-IMOCD KHAN
RIAT I10 28 EIIABALEVELAGE
I’ IQ
BIAHGALORE BEST

7 nmszz2zm’I’H.1A1ma£I3 4om:+.12s ‘ ”
DIOLATE MRMAI-EQOCDKHAH T
RIAT H0 28 SULAELE
HGSAKOTE To k
BANGALORE DB1’

8 ms GAUHER JAN
1310 mm mm ‘.

RfATHO28fiJIABE.E_.Y£1 .LA£}E.._
BANGALGRE k

9 ms
D10
RIAT no 23

10 ED 41 YEARS
«1:>1onaz@*z. am KHAN
R;A?r:50&3éwIAmvnMeE

mar

411 Jms swmznmmommms
V nxommm mmm KHAN
, ]RfA”I-‘..R’0 3 wzasaz. vmwa
mgr mapomrrrs

% & L 8 vznxnimr-ma, ADV.)

; wwms: wk” E’4x§«’%Pi€?”*§§93i’a§I533″W§&e {M3 §$Ifia%1E%é3&%’7%”.%%¢%%Zfia §”~§E£§§*% €L’ié§?”? %%§%i”§§*~§ €23???’ %€L§~»%%%%£&’¥”§&§'{& IE”»§7.E%Ca}E~% élfiif” i§{fi%%%’%éa%’§”§3&§%?£fi% §”fi%€f§-fivfé £3

THIS CRP IS FILWUIS 115 OF CPO AGAINST
THE ORER BNIED 01.12.2007 PASSED IN
l%C.HO.186I2{I32 GK TIE FILE OF Tim I ABM”

CIVIL JUDGE (sR.DH.) BAHGALGRE RURAL-DI8TRICT,
BANGALORE, msmssme TEE mscnumimws
PE’lYI’IOIi’ man we» 9 RULE 4 ww mc.152gms*%c1=c
m zmsrcm ‘rx–m n.m.cAsE E0.’ um

0.S.NO.55[91. A _

‘r1-as c.n.1=. comm OILFOR

mar, THE coum’ MADE %
my revision peuuon-5% the order

pulsed by the Thu
said mm. both on the
mm a:%%a;.;:a;y petition hon§’

fin’ tha aubumts’
{:1 nut on suit filad fizz” part1t1nn’ ‘ as

b_5a ::k.#1 1991 and folkawim the said suit
‘V ‘ for mrn-qwmecutinn, tbs pet1%”
% pawion for mntaoration cf the suit and that
1 was aka assumed am thaenfimwards, the
pemm was wed in me. Na.186l200f2 mm
rasmraticn fimxliu M’nc.Petitinn 119.134] 1995 and the

«a x :~a.:s:%s%:<::,§%»§gM§*mw, srmgsvm <éw;wW¥."5 €435; §~°¥E€CE&§"E mm? KW E'{é§x%N¢@»"?§§»§€§%. §~€:%€:§~§% QW =:';'i'§

itpetfiionakoeametobcdisnaiaaedandassuch.

$3

3.”I’haEaar:1adCo’u1ae1fi:rt12
thatitie aauit for partitlonamomthe

n-i.1 Court that me
not maintamoble in
mfarradto Omda 9 cm
pmmt petfiim Rule 4 and it
does any of the ardzuu
for order 43 ofthe cpc.
mad, lmrnad Counsel
mpmientarguedthmhe um

vul… V

lava not been able to canvhaee the trial
X onham-om fwthedaulay ixzfifing tlnmhc.
and the petition mm: mnmt he said to be
mmumnhnmniomwhgtmaknfiuanrmepaaam
inldiac. Peti1;iornHo.134~/%, petifiorma had the rhhtto
nppu1undm*Order43buthavitagnntchnuenIndntn,

3.”

.. §=’}%§€$3%§~§ Q?’ %&£’%;%&”§’fi5%% %*§§{§E**fi’ ‘c;Z;;%§* &m%§m§”.%m.m :¥’§§%'”J%&”§ %§€Z}ME%”§” %%£’3e,§i?*~§§tz.”§”}$’%E*’.?;fia, §P~§§%;§vEm§ €TI§%ZI¥§w¥§%.”§?* §€fi’%fl%<§&'§§i&?ss,§i,§& §"§§§§§§r°§ W

to lead evidence on moth 7 V

.. §~¥§€%%*§. QW' §"EE%i§?»%*§ &3£5@%%ia%7'§'"fia% §%%§é§iTI&%*"E £3? %'i'%i§N.a%fE%%§L¢% Wéifiiwfi' mmfigmm Wfififi £5

maberhl and no me:-ial k placed to show said
pawu ofauu-my mkiar was mt

for six months and neither at' the
farttknomm in the afiinvit *
Hence, the u-nu Ccurt

dnlny condunntinn.

the trial not ins.

found that 1-mm
hokfiwv. court became of chem: of

._ was chums of smart ban The time!’

dhmisothe pauuoni.

beim maeaxsm order, the pemem did mt
pa-&-nnynppenl. 1’l:a%rqtlrmp%t1::::isc. petition

fikzdianot k. ,m¢MdCom

y

,2

a«§:sa:;s4w W §m&mm.m Mgmg afmm {W E{§%%;M.,é&”§”§za§£fi@. §-%;’;z’e::»:«§»§ €:mm”:” W mmm’;M€:£a £::;:%

2;

33;

Q
X

$2?

:23

8. Havkg gone through the afioruafi manna
migaabyunuiucaunuuurigmlyuuggggusgadby
the burned Coumel fiat the

uzfiarr Oniar 9 Rule 4 itself is
the said petition can be taf’-_

circurmtancau 2
said oz-da: but in the 2 not
Rulaa got:

juotified in petition 11353′ in
ma; the mem,
I am when plammhaa
“long and it ‘3 mt pouibb in

put this point af tm:u:’ , in the minutes’ 1:

\% ‘ AA …..

_ t11er%, Mafia

Sd/-_-_=
Iudgfi