B N Niranjan vs C G Shivaranjini on 1 December, 2009

INTWHEHKHICOURTCHTKARNNHHGLNTBANGALORE
DATED1}HST3E}$ DAYTH?DECEMBERg2009

PRESENT

T!-IE §~ION'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF JUSTICE-» __

AND

THE I-§ON'BLE MRJUSTICE   4'

WRIT APPEAL No.4o5s/200:9      

BETWEEN

B N NIRANJAN _
S/O DR B Y' NAGARAJ, A/A 33'Y*RS 0'
R/A No.91/2, 10TH CROSS, EZBLOCK  ;
KUMARA PARK WEST,  V     
BANGALORE 560020   - _ APPELIANT
(By Smt : S M USEif'1¢.VADV.;rAbS\€Iit   

1 C G SHIVARANJINI .  " 
D /0 C -M GANCADHARAPPA, A/A 28 YRS

 , R/A Né0.8'--~0 E, 2F 'rEA;N ROAD
  BLOCK,..2ND STAGE

_ NAGARABi*LAVI';*. _

 550072  RESPONDENT
 A'9PEALv»IS"FILED U /S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

 ._"00URT AC1' PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
-WRIT PETITION NO.13-452/2008 DATED 02 /09 /2009.

  CQUR'If}DELNERED THE FOLLOWING:--

1*  APPEAL COMING UP FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

.0»;

  



2
JUDGMENT

{Delivered by P.D.Dinakaran, C.J.}

There is no representation on behaif of the parties.

2. However, this appeal is coming up before this

maintainability of the appeal. Since thegggimpugned’ “‘

29.08.2008 passed by 1: Addl. Principai.:’JL’idage,
Bangalore is made on I.A.No.V in 20061
iearned Single Judge exercising the conferred
under Articles 226 and 227 of India, disposed

of dated 02.09.2009, in
our consideredzopxinion; ‘would lie against the impugned
orders in viewvof the t;iecision”‘ofV«t.1d1e larger bench of this Court in
TAi\j7i1\’/i;”\3’T1\1;?5’\-i’.:,A’L~’,1}:D ‘i–QTHi§t2s””i}s. MISS RENUKA AND OTHERS
reported 1207, wherein. it is observed as foiiows:

V 4′. no appeal would lie under Section 4 of

0 the High Court Act against the order of the
:SinQl_e Judge passed in exercise of the power conferred
V”-a_nderA”A.’Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the

V matter arising against an order made deciding an issue,
T passed by the Court subordinate to the Court, in the

course of a suit or other proceedings, not finally disposed
of, which is attracted by Section 115 c.P.c.

governed under Section 8 of the Karnataka High

Act; and in all other matters which are not ataagéted is
Section 115 C.P.C. and not governed under SeCtior:I_vv8’h’Qf
the Act, an appeal would lie under *1

against the order passed under 9(xiijthex

Karnataka High Court Act read”‘*i.oith Articles
227 of the Constitution of India Rules: 12.’
39 of the Writ Proceedings’ u%er!t:as« Article” 1 JUSG}
to Schedule II to the Karnataka and Suits
Valuation Act’ 1958s Q . _. ..

5. Hence, foiioutinétof l,a1’ger in TAMMANNA
AND OTI-IERS~”Vs;’ ANb~o*i*HERs reported in ILR
2009 KAR. 126?, this ‘sjss dismissed.

Sf;-I’ , Q
Cltssi 355315″

sd/~
JUDGE

it ” r 7, ‘ht ‘ ‘ Ir1de.>§:~: No.

Web. East: Yes/No

‘ ._Snbf<,V