IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA '
WRIT PETITION NO.8677/2I010_ Sc':/W" "
WRIT PETITION NO.8678/2:t}_1O ,(Gzr~TI~CPC)' 4' A I» T
BETWEEN:
SRI MALLADEVARU
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O LATE DODDANNA
R/A HIRENALLUR VILLAGE
HIRENALLUR HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK.
PETITIONER
.... __ '*1;;,_ " (common in both WPS)
(BY SR1 LS.C{-!IKKAi\EAGOU?)AR._,4 ADV. ) _
AND:
1 SR1 DODDAGANGAPPA '
@ DCéfD'DAI.GANG'A.OHARAFPA
- _AGE1O'<AE.OuT_ 82 YEARS... -
S/O LATE}<AL~LAPPA.
2 '--SRI1;-KALIIEEASVHAPPA
AGEOAEOUT-. 52. YEARS.
3 -- SRIAESHWARAPPA
HAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
4. SR: Bye KUMARAPPA
_ 'A_GEO*A8oUT 44 YEARS
No.2 TO 4 ARE SONS OF
DODDAGANGAPPA @ DODAGANGADHARAPPA
(BY SR: 'I5-,.L.§Ufi'ESE§:.,"'ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
ALL ARE R/AT HIRENALLUR
VILLAGE, HIRENALLUR HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK.
RESPON_DE£\!TS..
(in W.P.NO.8_67-7[§£Q_fiC}_"
(BY SRI D.L.SURESH, ADV.)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI REVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O. LATE HONNAPPA, " _
FOREST GUARD, FOREST OFFICE,
CHIKMAGALUR.
2. SRI RARAMESHWARAPRA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, __ ;
S/O. LATE HONNAPPA. '
JUNIOR ENGINEER, 3 _ -
PWD OFFICE, CHIk:MA::3ALLIR3;. _
3. SR1 JAYARRA, ' if '
AGED ABOUT 44 YVEA-'RS_,_ "
AGRICULTURIST.
SL. NO}. TO 3 ARE vRESI,DENT-Oi=
HIRET\sAL;LUR_ VILLA-GAE," * '
.T.--'HIREN.'\tiUR'H0BLi,'*.,. .....
, KADUR"DTAL'UE<.
A .. v ' ..RESPONDENTS
(in W.P.No.8678/2010)
SERV-ED) ,
« ‘–WRIT PETITION NO.8677/2010 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
.1 ..AND;2,2’7~O_F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
-.TH.E”O_RD_ERj; DATED 18.2.2010, ON IA,VI U/O VII RULE 11(A) & (d)
R/wj_.SE.C.’1S1 OF CPC., IN OS.NO.17/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
=fC-IVIL JUDGE [JR.D§\I} AT KADUR SUBMITTED AS ANNEXURE – A, BY
WAY”‘O’F WRIT OF CERTIORARI ALLOW IA. NO.VI FILED BY THE
p_ETITONER/ DEFENDANT AND TO DISMISS THE SUIT & PASS SUCH
2. The petitioner/defendant has filed written statement
and has contested the suit claim on various grounds.
was filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11(a) *
to reject the plaint on the ground thatv..<th»ere
action and the same is barred by law
attraction of the principles of res the
application was opposed bythe plagin-tiffb'y–~..gfiling"statement of
objections. Upon consideration,' vfinding LA No.6 to
be devoid of merit,'_ha:s-.pas;sed;' «rejlection. Feeling
agg rieved, th e deferrda s' file._'_:l e-seffyv rit petition s.
3. -learned counsel appearing
for the petitiAo:1e’i’,p% the matter for sometime,
submits that; the utri..al’co’urt’- beldirected to dispose off the suit
e$V<ped'it§ou'sl.y,*7it "wflithoutl lllll being influenced by its
the impugned order.
4. it Sr’i,D.V.”L.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the
submits that, the trial court may be directed to
ofl’ the suit expeditiously, since the trial of the suit has
V already commenced.
54
M
6
The triai court shall dispose off the suit on its meri_t,__
uninfiuenoeci by any of the findings and observations made
order dated 18.02.2010, passed in LA No.6.
Contentions of both parties are i_< ep.t"'._[
consideration.
Ksj/M ._