1 IN THE HIGH COHWF OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6'-5 DAY OF JANUARY '.2009 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A s BOPANALE.' "
CIVIL REVISION PETITIGN N0. 151/%2_.::’ <3§ % " L
BETWEEN :
SR1 M GANESHAN 3/0 H MU’I’HUSWAMY.__
AGED ABOUT 44 YRS A.
Rj’AT’NO.2G/ 1 SWAMY CGMPLEX
ALBERT VIC’? (31? ROAD KALASIPALYAQI’
BANGALORE? — _ ._ ‘ PI:fI’I.’.I_’ioNER
(By Sn; VM’ R2;i:<A:éfia'Dv;- 503 "
Sri:]M 12 RMAcQPA.L,A_D¥.,) . _'
AND :
1 __is.1*21H <3 v1Lm.fARAQHA'vA REDDY
" L»-J
– $3/QR H G REDETFF
é . 3 AGED ABOUT 54 YRS
– ‘V R/”AT’N,0,1:e-5TH CROSS
i,AvK.3HM:..I.-MQHT
3 ‘=MuNN33;mmw MAIN ROAD
__BA_NGAl§;QRE 37
THE STATE 05’ KARNATAKA
~ : ‘ 3? {TS aacmraav
, ‘is: s T A T, MS. BIHLBINCE
‘ – ~aAN<:.ALoRE..5ao em samsmmmm
f ..§£3,§ 3:1; (3 M SRR~HVA$A REDDY, ADV. FOR R1
Sri: SANGAMESH G PATIL, GP FOR R2}
J:
THIS PETITION IS FILED U18 1255 cm AcsAIN$’»-.:T’HE
ORBER DATED: 7.1.2006 PASSED on ;.A.N’n;2-.e”–.e.1’r:..
OS.NO.4L’?3/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI] ADD1g§CETY~£L}Vi;L
JUDGE. BANGALQRE, DISMESSNG I.A.NO.2 FILED-A4’U/C}?
{ti} R/W S 151 CFC SEEKING AN ORBER fI’HE”
PLAIE’-1’I’ ms 94 OF MVACT.
This Petition comm’ g on ‘ ‘jig,
Court made the following :
oabefie 4
The petitioner] in the
order dated 7.1.2006 2004.
In mg the defendant med IA~Ii under
Grder 7 Rule *1; (id) Sectziolia 151 9:’ cm pmying
that.etg§&1’eV emit isinoe according to the defendant the
eui$:_.§vas»”fi9t.41i:aintainah}e in View of the provision cxzmtained
the Motor Vehicles Act. The iflaintifi”
_ oppéew said appiieation. The triai Court after
the riva} contentions was ef the View that the
i~s;;ucsA”izavo1ved in the suit would have to be adjudicated by
Civil Court and is not a «mac where the plajnt is to be
rejected by allowing the appiicafion. The defendant is
‘-
therefore bcfom this; Court ciam1m’ ‘ g to be ‘
said order. ._
3. A perusal of the V113}? = L’
would indicate that the was _»pofi¢gsiiT_f1;eV;§;mwsion
contained in Sectiem noticing the
rival oontentiiuns 531$ alsq.’t}:%: com: to the
conclusion wmfld not be
attzmcztscefl from pmrceedillg with
the suit; by the trial Court,
i am of ” has not eummitizw any
111ater;::L! LA inaémuch as it has noticed the
. . gpflhas -” 1* came to its cronciusion.
‘ -. 3’thcr aspect which mquims to be noticscd is
were also beibxc the KSTAT in
; R.P.1~i¢,:t§?/”aé’i am IOBIOI which has been disposed of on
V’ ” V ~1.3:1L1._,A2aéé3 wherein the KSTAT has also expressed am: View
— ti1.~;£t1é;;e nights of the pa.r%s would have to be detcnnined by
the Civil Coult. Themrem, considering all theme
the matter, i am of the view that the order $183333}
iinpugned in this pefitien docs not;-ai1~–ii:;r
the contenijans cf the parfies am IeI;ii<i;n —
pending suit. V_
With the above obgervatiéizgé Ckaxifiéatiéns, the
pciition stands disposm’ Na] oI;dc§1″‘a§;