Mr Ameerjan vs Mrs Fahmeeda Begum on 6 January, 2009

EN TEE Eififi QQERT fl? K%R§RTAKR ET §A§%$bQRE

SATEfi $315 was §§m§QfiY Q? JA§mAa¥ 2§§§ “,

was H®N’§LE §a.J§é%iC$«A;s.a@éA§xg*7 1
czvzn Raviszefi §a?:?ia§*§§.3é2£ésaa::§@ “<_
aawaau: V fl ' V x "' ' '

Mr.Ameer§an Sis 1at&,%ch3mefig?$usu£f,a

égad abaut ?E ¥3§r5;f "– . K

fia.$B8, Cfiméfi, "';A*_V;,

Rarayan Sfiaatri R9a§,v:

fianjumaliga; K,&§fimh$11a;_ a_»

fiysaré~§?G$§E. 1 { v’ %A”.’«w,i …?E?§TI®R€R

{By s3′.§;$Ifianmc§g$;.%d§j’W

1gK’¥$a;?fihfie$§§ E§§xm,
V¥£m%i3ta*E;§a$tagir,
figsfi-§b§ut,$lsyear3,

?3.L”M:.s§Ab§g;.fia1ik,

CQURI OF KARNATAKA HiG§-Q Qflflfiff KARNATAKA HEGH COURT OF KARNJWAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARMATAj(fl H5654 CQURW

iftgig late %,$33tagir,
,_*Rg§fi sham: éi yaara,

“fE&i§ are rasidimg at Nm.E§%,
. fiarayanshastri Read,
. Kamjumaliga, Kgfl.Mah3113,
I Mysare–E?fi&§i.

Ms.Tahba§su& Beau,

EEG latg M.§astagi:,

Agéd abmut gs yaarsp

Rig: Na.253§,

Ashmka Qéat $3555 23,

fies: 3ha%i Mgfijié,

La3hka: fiahaila, fiy3$ram§?$¥U1.

é. Mr.RiyazwarwRahaman,
355 iate %.§astagir,
Agefi shag: 3% yearg,

L

‘1-

COHR? OF K&RNAT&§(A MGM C@UFJ’V’CTfE KARNATAKA HES!-I COURT OF KARNATAKA H36!-4 COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CGEIR? 0? KARNATAKA i-“HG!-I COW?

Centanded that tag very reading 65 the yfiaint an

the facé af it wauifi iadicate that age fifiéifitiff

has éfimittafi the séttlemant deafig fiat fiéfl ég$y_

aiieged sertaifi mthsr asgacts sf tha matfier §itfi_1

regard ts seitiementwaaa§ afid £hé$§f§rfi ffié Saga
admissima was suffibififit tfi s§m§Q$sxfi§é”$ate bf
allageé aaugg afz3¢t§aa3§f ag* é§éfl~bg3éd on the
said admis3ian’ afid ;§fi§§f$fiefi*the plain: wauld

net hava beam rs§écfi£§”a:_tfiia §t3ge.

$._fLééffiadQ}fi§g$5él “far tha raspondants
s@u§h: i¢ §fis:ify*th§”5@fiar gasseé by tha triai
$éfi:£_ aa§’ ¢9n§§§§§§_ fihai the triai cfiurt hag

aatiéa§M-the §§:€ that the questiaag raifieé

~?;eq&ira fietaig, consideratiwn and thagafere the
wua§§iicgti¢fi wag zefiéstad anfi the same fines mat

‘W_:§ll7f¢rfiata:feran£a.

I 5. In {fig light sf the cantantians uxged,

“it i3 nmtisaé t%2t tha glaiat dififllfifiéfi tbs saga

an which the §1ai§tiff’ was befare the trial

caurt aha the saufia cf fifltiflfl is gigs indicated
ia the yiaintg ?h$u§h the laarned $¢un3$l fie:
tha §etitiansr~ caatanéa that tag avézments af
tha glaint it3a§fT wsuia indicaté that it is

1

in

COURY OF KARNATMCA HEGH COUfI T”C}f;? KARNATMCA HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA HiGI-E COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HfGH COUR

.5.

issue ané after thg gartiefi tender evifiégce on

tag same’ Hence, if gush an is3ué.h3S fiat hash

framsd, it is Ear the trial cmurfi ts ££ama an_

issue with .rega:fi ts limit&tiQn ~aa¢f«tfiéreaftei_ k

cvnside: the mattgz é3.7_fieri%gV”~an¢g >Qfii;e
aiapesing $5 the 5ui£;,pthé ;iS3ué xréiaéing ‘ta

limitatian shall %& cwfiaidergd fir$tfiu

?. ?h$refa;§H%§é§$§§mgiilifiese afipects in
View aafi”;§3ti@ing;5:h§£ ‘th§7 txial tear: has
axer£i%$§<§"ia$"€j§ia§§$fiiafi ta réjact the
a§piia#§ia£W§n fig§;$fi§2i an the grmund that tha
m%%§é$ ':§@§ii§91 §%$$ii. sensideratisa, E as mat

359 §a_ array sfivaé ifi call far interference.

Efi' Aéééérfiingly, wits' the abcve

.\§fi$a§véti§ns, the petitimn atanda fiispesed af.

_ §s fiffigé as ta asstsn Csnsidering that the suit

is Yaf tag year ESGQ, the partias shall ca~

"¢perata with tha trig: £523: and the txial smart

sfialk andaavvur ts digpvae $2 the suit as

exyeditiaasly as pv33ib2$.

fid/*
Ifldge

3:1.