{N THE HEGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY 0? NovEMB1§1vgM%;é3:¢B8V.%_'V;LL:%I: _
BEFORE
THE Hom3Lr.-: am. JUSTECZE4 A T¥3i;>i'mza;A- %M
wan' PETITION NO.616§/2OV(33_(i2~M I V
BETWEEN: 1
SMT LAXMI SAPALTHI _ 5 _ u . '
W/O LATE NARAYANA SAPRL' 1&1 2. ;
AGE!) 34 YEARS *
R/A SAJIPAMUDA v:1,:..aGx«:~- .
BANTWALATALKII-{',«.1_,');_'K. 1; § :
2213.137 HER (grip. i-EJLDER. _ '
MR.u.xAn'r:a'Amé.g '
_V PETFFIONER
{By Sri : '~9um'>1:-régi':sa§zA':éA.%Eag'r, ADV. ,1
AND :
- ,.¢9NE'[v":fiI\SI'%IAIs'!?~fiA """ " "
W K), LATEV E'A..RPJs§ESHWARA MAYYA
MAJOEE. %
M L amrwA1xmLUK.D.x.
R/_A-'%§{0mK§:'f §*{éégL:;AmGuD9E
sA..nP'AMum.$ .:;,.s..A<3E
RESPONDENT
‘ ” {By :3: SUDHAKAR PA}, ADV. ;
“THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARNCLES 226 AND 227′ OF THE
C1ON$I’ITU'”£’ION OF INDIA PRAYING T0 QUASH THE 01213312 D1′.
)2
»
04.04.2008 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN] BAITFWAL
ELK. GN l.A.NO.I$, £6 AND 17 IN O.S.N0.19’2/1999 VIBE
This Writ Petifion coming on for A4 %
‘B’gr0up, this day, the Court made the fcllowing ” V
oRDERf
The petitioner hcreVin is”*– ‘t’hc
O.S.N<1-.192/1999. The suit med '3;-;¢ j1g$;gi:;.n£' and
decree of pew:-,nt in of the
suit schedule property. opposed the
suit. The .V and at the
stage. counsel for the plaintiijf fiicd
three appiications came to be
'as iA'-.Ng5s."13,"'16.' and 17. IA–15 was for mopcning
A"th¢fi§s¢%%'j'eA§x:,%%.to '''' it the Plainfifl" to adduoe furkizucr
sivas filed under Order 13 Rule 17A ofCPC
to DW22 for fixrfhcr cxtyssmicaminatiaon. Vida
M51? fi'1e;_-{under Older 15 Ruic 1 cf cm the pzaimitr sought
VA of witness summmm tn the witness mcnfioned
V. _§}:1_érciI1 in defies: on behalf of the plaizafifll The defendants
opposed the said appliwtiotg
-‘1
2. The trial Court after ..
contentions by its order dated
application. The plaintiff ‘V
by the sand” order is before this
3. This Court at tithe}? notice to the
respondents ha?-.3tHY0d:’ V _ ‘ V in the suit.
have hmtd Sri Pundikai
Ishwaza:”‘A_B’h:_at; for the petitioner and
Sudhakar ” for the respondent and
V. A_
‘ ” .. _Ocu:rtwhiise oaixsidexing the prayer made in
nottcz;->d’ that though earlier” orpportuxlities
L’ had the pla:int:ifi'” had not utilised the same.
u x V’ noticing that the said applicaticms has been made
.’ atkkabgiazed stage has di3§issed the said applications. The
trial Court has nofimd that the same is being mad;
pm-long the issues. Insofar as the trial Court .
aspect: of the matter in the of t}Iué”$:glfi v .4 ”
the year 1999, the trial Court 55;. }:,1(;,~£:’
However, what mquircs to be Iivfilififil-531;!
litigating with mgaxd no the before
conclusion of the suit, ‘ in their
flavour shouki when
certazh reasons” A accompanying
the app§i:téfi(211 ,f,it in §i_1é”i:£itcmst ofjusiicc also to
pe1m1’t§£2c}i on tcmxa.
5. In the plaintifl’ has sought for
fn111h..cjf”c:oss exam_ gm’ of mv.2 and mace’ the smd’
put to some hardship, the permission for
,:-,m”~–_fi,: could be gantacd by ilnposing cu-mm’
V VV _ eost£§’.—- as the wtitncss to be exammod on behalf of the
any event the pzajmm man have to bear the
the witness. Natwithatanding the same, the
¥..
.~ . ‘_ eostga’.-C. V
defendant, the trial. Caurt would be inquired to
case and provide the opportunity. Further H
shall also fix a specific time fzmc u
cross of DWJZ and
the additional witnesses by the ” V
event, the trial Cour: ené1:’v1,g31o.-rites and
diapers: of the suit ‘e:xpcd_ itiously as
gsossihic, but nqt;*’1a__icr the date of
f1um’sh1’:s::g”‘a jthisfixflér “tt;e;tr:,a’ 1 Court.
” 4′ thé: V’ dirccfions and
cLa1ificatio1Vis,¢_Vfhe disposed of. No curler as to
561/?
Tudgé
52¢”