High Court Karnataka High Court

Shivalingappa vs Mahadevappa on 5 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shivalingappa vs Mahadevappa on 5 February, 2010
Author: Ravi Malimath
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated thés the ST" Day Of February 2010 '
BEFORE _ __ _ 
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH :. 
WRIT PETITION NOHZI747/2008 (OM~;Oé"C,2.  2' I

BETWEEN:

SHIVALINGAPPA

S/0 LATE APPAJAPPA
AGEDABOUT63YEARS
FVATDOORAVHLAGE
JAYAPURA|4OBLL.'g
MYSORETALUK. " " a=O', _

; --- 2 _f-f,EETnTONER
[By Sri Tharaarzatha Shetty; Advbgate]

 

1 MAHAD'E'I?A_PE~A--';--_V ' ._  = 
S/O LATEA:ARPAJAERA"*-.'I I  '
AC3-ED _ABO§JT"  'r EARS, ~-
I:/AT DOORA \/14LLAG'E._

JAIIAEIJ RA HO:EvLI,"» _  "
MYSOREI TAL_LJ|<..A'-- _ 

2 , THE SP"E= BY THE PETITIONER TO TAKE HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
'  ON RECORD.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'S' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

AI OT



O R D E R

In the suit of respondent No.1, petitioner sought to
file his written statement. The same was re}ected”b:yi..th-e’
trial Court on the ground of insufficiency of *1′

2. Srifrharanatha Shetty, Iiearn_eld’lV

petitioner contends that the .i_,rnp_ugne’d__oidVer_ ‘and * L’

would have to be set aside.«:..He.””L’su’b»rnits.that substantial
reasons have been give’n’i_n- f’.affi’d:”a$J:_ivt’V:especiaily in view
of the fact tha_tthe.r_e for in order
to settle th

3. VRe_4s”ponVdenVt.:lxloiiiéthough served has remained

~_ unrep resented’. ” . _

A.’-Edi.’RS3.’i%;iJeianumantharayappa, learned High Court

Goxrefninent Pieader appears for respondent No.2 and

subrnitsllthat there is no error committed by the trial Court

uthatflcatis for interference.

5. On hearing the counsels, I’m – of the considered

view that the petition requires to be allowed in as much as

eém

3

there is no sufficient reasons given by the trial Court for

rejecting I.A.No.3 for acceptance of the written staternent.

In support of the said application, the petitioner has’st’a.te~ciVV

that the dispute was sought to be settletl

Panchayath in order to avoid iitigation.___ Th’e”s”arn;Ve ”

failed, he was compeiled to file:”the’_’_’written”

thereafter. The reasons accolrd”e.d_ in the -just r L’

and reasonable and as to why..t.he”vsa’iT.ige couldfioytiibe filed
earlier. By acceptingR”tlh.e~ ‘i,—.;_ri}tAi’an.”‘statement, the legal
rights of the vre:s’ponde’nt”wo;i_l’d«.:n_otif-in,’any manner be

affected.

6. l”-‘o__r” thVé..’aif’oa-estaid reasons, the order dated

l6.v?*.§2€’V)O8 passe-dlbylthe Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) &

I.A.No.III is set aside.

H ~. aliowed subject to payment of costs of a

g sun; o.f””VRs.’1£,OOO/~ to respondent No.1/plaintiff before the

“..]..triail-._Court by the next date of hearing.

if Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly.

std/-i-Lg
fudge

lll\-‘