High Court Karnataka High Court

Abbasali Bora vs The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike … on 9 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Abbasali Bora vs The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike … on 9 July, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
4 1*
ms; mg: 3:193 COEFRT 0%' K_ARE\EA'§".AEiA AT BAN<:m,012£<:
DATEB THIS THE 9% DAY 3;? JULY, 

BEFQRE

TE-{E HCEWBLE MRJUSTICE gavi fvEz3E;E--;%£i_A'?$§ « _ V': "  

WRIT PETFTION 510.5111 $3.5′ ‘”2:{‘:%£)8

BETWEEN :

Abbasaii Basra, S/0 Thayab A}:i_ I~} .

1- The Bangggggremghafiagar Palika,
._}3£a.I§ga}Q_m, Répmsented by its

CL’nniui13:iSs:§_Qner, Bangaiara.

.”J.é3t§S’iSf8i1’5L E}{E3C11tiV6 Engineer,

A ‘C§an§1hifi3.<§;ar, Sub~DiVisio:1,
'B . P' ,' V Banga1are~9.

.. , ‘; 1 ‘ ‘ ; Thé Afya Vidgi.–‘a Shaia,

. _ 13:;;:mI1t.s’ Association,
V. ‘}=<'fep:'eser1ted by its President,
N95, 531 Main Road,
Garidhinagar, Bangalozr»-9.

. RESPQNDENTS

.£L*

..3._

This Writ Petititm is fiied under Articles 1226 & 22?
of the Constimtien sf India. praying to quash f€}”1e..__or<:'it:::r
pasmd by the PrLC:ity Civil 85 S<':SSi(}f1SW '.j_u:ii_ge,
Bangalore, in G.S.No.8193 /20812 rejected"-_"L"-VT.the

ayplicaiiion 1.A.No.a dated 2 1. 11.200? \rid£=:__;!_¥'I'1'1r?:¢:=':_:-;IV.:1__I"'r:i¢__i_4'3S« _

and etc.

This petition coming 0n:'IBi"';:~:¢1imi;3éitj%_ i

this day, the Courf: made the f0H§)¥¥*?31"1g:+

The petitionar seeks V. ivnfiggififiorari to
quash the order dzitéiciiii on I.A.No.6
by the iea1';;c':d__ jirétiissicns Judge,

Bang;g1ore,1i§:v.r;z;s§:;«No;3'i9;s,i2002.

i':_i'i"3£i filed uncier Order 26 Rule 9

by the Vpe1;i:tVii01i§.-r was rejected on 21.11.2067. The

.i for the petitioner submitted that the

'aj3p0i1§t;2'1'€%13§':; "(if a Cammissioner is cruciai for the just

ffiéalfiidjudicatian of the suit. It is submiited that

V. xthe.é;ieinarca€ion of the boundaries of the suit property

ifiyoiild go in the root cf 'the suit and would assist iii the

H just and final adjudicaticn of the Inatter.

%%%gng/

(311 pemsai of the impugnrzd o1'der,j;:'jésfisfi-.T:E5<:
seen that in the aariier suiz'; O.S.No.'7993_/
held that the suit SCh€€1"1,11€ p:'b"pek*€};_

defendant therem and on the v__bé:s_is of '~

submitted by that surveyor, '~::uit was' :i.ié§2:{:i;<gsed. The
triai Cimirt, "{":f1€I'(€fO1"€v,f"é=i?.{;1S :jfmi;1*1::? fviéx=s.%é thatvviixider such
ci3"c11:11sta::1ce$, title applisatééfifii' flfitzé ' -'i5§z'__'_'.~t}1(-2 petitioner

deserves to be :"<~'g§c§§::¥.ed._. =:

4.’ “”” “E-Afi:a,ve’V’ :§:1éafd,””t.he counsel for the
$EifiOI”V£i?’;1″.” E do. reason ta interfere in thfi

iinpuggied €};n:1’er. Q3.’ is made out far such

‘ ‘Pefition, being devoid of marks, is

._.a3::;:_s:i1*5 giézteci’

sd/…

Iudgé

i

M. 4–