Smt Mangalagowri vs Sri M Mallesha on 20 April, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF §{ARNATAI{.A AT BANGALORE

DATES THIS THE 20*' DAY OF' APRIL 2009f  

BEFORE  
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE: ]S3_.S.§~?!5§'1'I1';;'.';v.  e

WRIT PETITION N0. 15503:i:2C=[{37j((§}fx¢I§{§}§A§j~

BETWEEN :

Smt.Manga1agow'ri,

D / 0.LiI1ge Gowda,

Aged about 28 years,  '  3 

Resident of Goflaradodcii...  _  '

Village, Kappa Hzkbli,  '     

Mandya         ' ...PE'Z'I'I'IONER

(B3: sr:.;{';2égr:a;§aea,»gaar..)

AND:

 1. S1ji.,%jM.fv§a31esI1a:_,VVV'

_ S;l.o:;La£e Maliegdwtié,
._ . Aged _ai:>ou<1':"-€333 years,
  'C1é1'¥c._i:f:,  Aéijzocate Ofiice,
~C;'---Q;Sé1ifi'path' Kumar,
NQ.230.,.  Main, 3"' Stage,
Manjljztgafiianagar,
-. Rajajirqagar, Bangalore.

 $:n}E.S.N.Shash:rekI1a,
/ 0.M.Ma11esha,

    Aged about 38 years,

  --«  Sri.Gourisha,

S/e.M.MaI1esha,
Aged about 19 years,



4. K1m1.Gout:hami,
D/e.M.Ma1iesha,
Aged abcut 1'7 yeas,

(respondent No.4 is minor

represented by her natural
guardian and mother
Smt.Shashireka who is
Respondent No. 1)
Respondents 2 to 4 are
R/o.Sadaho1a11;1 village,
Maddur Taluk,

Mandya District.

5. Sri.L.Manju1’iatha, V
S/0.SI’i.LingegoWda, _ 1
Aged about 29 years, 9

6. » :

S/o.€§ri.Li;1gsgo_§v;’,a, _
Aged about £25′ ‘ ‘-

Resporadém’; are
R] Q .’ ®1iarac1,;:’idi’ village,
K§§g3a_ ¥~Iovb1i, Maciduzr Taluk,

% I&«1s§no1j;*}-31Z§i~sj3’ict. …RESPONDEN’I’S

Adv. far R2 to R4}

msnrm petition is flied under Aririclcs 226 and

of 1;1″”+::’ Constitzxticm 0f India with a prayer to gxant

_ Of. all further proceedings pursuant to the order

‘ Tdateti 22.09.2007 on LA. in O.S.19/2005 on the file of
‘ V’ .___””the;ieamed Civil Judge {Sr.I)vn.) Maddur.

This writ petition coming on for orders, this day,

” “the Court made the follawingz

OREER

Oder dated 22.39.2007 is cixalienged by _t1__1e

petitioner in this writ pefiiion. Petitioner is the ,4

in the Trial Court. The impugned order reads

“It is submitted that, there is
worked out by the parties. Poe: a
It is submitted that, the’ ‘hrzfs
paid the maintenance of»
award tiil day ancir’

to son who is BE.

Hence, the ,appZic§1i’$}:.ffor of

this suit of

ef j’;’r,i:i£iz2.g which, the order

of Put up for
pVczymefii~ofz 3,,1«o.:2o0?. *

‘A from the ortier, the Court

basis that plainfifl’ has not paid

per the order passed in this regard.

Hence it eh;-serveci that applicatierz for restoration of the

sV€iitV<::Ié"eerved te be aliowed subject to payment ef cost of

V' …_"VI32s.Vfi,{}OO/~ faflmg which the order of ' dismissal of the

isuit would siand. Afier passing the said order, the

%"

.. 5 ..

noting that the plaintiff had not 1et–~_iz1 his evidence.

Therefore, he submits that dismissai of the suit on the

grcmnd that the plaintiff had failed to pay maintenafizge

amount was totaliy alien to the issue that was ” 3

be addressed namely restoration of the suit. H

6. The submission of the is $§%sl1″foé}I:un”o{ vcpst-,Qf Rs. 5,000/ — is vacateé.