High Court Karnataka High Court

Manjamma W/O Siddaiah vs Savitha B S D/O Late Sannaiah on 15 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Manjamma W/O Siddaiah vs Savitha B S D/O Late Sannaiah on 15 September, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF K.ARNA'I'AKA_,. 

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAYNQF $EyrE';n;:8ER%',%k2§Ga   

BEFC)RE'=..:' '  
'Z'§~+IE HON'BLE' 112113: mswm B; S;..1é£1f1Lj':

w.P.:sIo. 1151§}»20Q8{C}1\u§§CFC} %

BETWEEN

1.

Manjamma; W/oi -Sidéajalz,'  '
Agw ah.01i®39 years,~*' "  
Resident 44oi'Tj;:.-viliage,
I{att:?2ya.jP'-;yst  '4 "
    V  . 

. 

Aged ‘about 8=4A’3’¢3rS;’ ”
Resid-anét. of B_o13:1n1at1aha}1y village,

; ‘Kattaya’-POSt’and Hebali,

1.’: Hassan Tq” and. «District.

Petitioners

‘W {i3y B. Baladare, Advocate.)

Aged about 24 years,

savitha 3.3. I}/0 Late smmajan,

Resident of Bommanahalii village,
Kattaya Hobali,
Hassan Tq and District.

2. B.S.Parvat}:1i W/0 Nagaraj,
Aged about 29 years,
Ashoka Badavane,
Aduvakli, Hassan City.

3. Savithri W/0 Anand,
Aged about 28 years,
Channapura, Kundmu Hobiig .
Alur Taluk, Hassan District.

4. Ningamma W/0 Late VSaz1r1aiai1.

Aged about 69 years, ” ‘
Bommanahally viiiage,
Kattaya Hobli, . ‘
Hassan Taluk a11d”D’i§5tI’i.jc’tV. ” A

5. Manager, _ g »
Kavery
Kattaya Village anéfiiilobaii, ,
Hassan Taluic 85 Distfiiiii-;,i4Vi V ” i

i QRESPONDENTS

v…’i’his WE:*:.i3__’fi1¢d uf1<ie_r_.Articies 226 and 227 of the
Coné.titutiaI1'i" préL3%ir1gA~__to quash the order dated 4-8-2008
passcdfin. I'.A.I\'f9.'7 :'f'11'(:d_ under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in
;Q.S.No.25.1j'2004:'*-igy Principal Civil Judge (Jncin) and
JIVEEC at Hassan. 'j_

4' on for preliminary hearing this
day," '§".,hf3x Couyt "made the folluwing:

nifietitiioners are chaiienging the order dateci 4-8-

by the Pun' cipal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Hassan in

6

in the order passed by the Court below as of

paragraph 12 of the plaint which is prodtioed: along V’

the Writ petition at Anenxnre-‘A’ ;s.iekes«it

time of presentation of the ._

Plaintiffs that the document”‘e«s.tiated not

binding on them as Hf11gm_ The
amendment sought to prayer
seeking a dated 5~4-2004
was illegal any new cause of
action amendment permitted
cannot In any event there is no

apparent or error committed that warrants

interferenot: inexeroise of the jurisdiction under Articles

-die Constitution. Hence this writ petition

beinsg”-44._de§%oid’ sf merit is dismissed at the stage of

” ” * I if admission.–~ ”

3d/3′
Iud§5

“siab/–