IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAi..ORE__.___
DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010'?V.V'::.:""-:'..v",'
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEN;UG.04PAL':A"GO:'M5Ii\
WRIT PETITION No.30-422/2010 T'Gr-":E-c'ET»~c;'
BETWEEN:
1. B.S.AbdLEE Samad,
S/o. Shaik Hussain,
Since dead by !..Rs.
(a) Smt. Zeenathunrflsa,
W/o. Ameer Sa'b,"';.e.T-' _
Aged about:.60"yea._rsj, " ._: "
Behind Potice St_a"£ion}" » A
Vijayapprya, _D'evafia;h.aii%.Ta.i_lJk,~
Bangatore Distrbct. .4 ~
(b) Smt. Haseen Taj,._ " "
W/o.Imtia2.._Pa3ha',_ .
Aged _about 53 ._years,
R/at.4\;{enkatagiri"i-fiovte, ,
"'Chirrta'm-a'ni."* """ "
% (c) T'ST}.yMVuT:§:i'ffAI§r'aeid,
S/Q. late Ab'dt,éiy::Samad,
= Aged about 4.5 yea rs,
-V R/at Chdwdareddypaiya,
"Chintamani.
V "--SV?iV'.yi\ǤwLIje.eb Pasha,
S/a.'*:B.S.Fakruddin Sab,
"'~AgVe_<;f about 30 years,
' "~R/at Tippunagar, Koiar road,
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' group
this day, the Court made the following:--
ORDER
One 136. Abdul Samad, filed O.S.23/99 in the
Jiudge (Sr. Dn.), Chickballapur, against’ Naraya-..nasr*.AiAai’nyV: since’:
deceased and now represented by legal_ represe’n_ta’t»i.ves
Smt. Lalithamma W/o V. Laks.h’rninaraya.na»..gfRed:d§]it fort’
declaratory and consequential,reliefs;;” been contested.
Issues were framed. Trial has taken. v’Vp!’ac__e;[‘%– .Whe_n the suit was
at the stage of argt_1.me:nts, liegajl_rep~resejnta’tii;e’s of the plaintiff
filed LA. 22 undelrlllvgfl with sec..151 CPC to
appoint a admitted signatures
of the plaintifzfyirithw appearing on the registered
sale deed in. favlo4ur..:Vof’r.the”-deiendants in respect of the suit
pf5P’é.I_tyV’§rr:hé”lfap’p.li_cation’Whaving been opposed, the Trial Court
has 16.7.10 rejecting I.A.22. The main
K:”re’ason for re_j.ection is that, there is no specific pleading as
‘ “*e0’rAi’te’rnplated ‘render R 4 of O 6 CPC.
i ~ rtlherfecolm.
-‘ “Heard the learned counsel on box: sides and perused
/””P/
I S
4
3. In my opinion, the impugned order is not a
considered order. Since there is a lis between the parties with
regard to an immoveable property, the Trial Court has to
reconsider I.A.2.2 keeping in view the evidence on record,..,to.,,’_’fi.nd
out whether there is any ambiguity and need for aPD.o’,iint’r’n’e-ntji.0:” _
otherwise of a Court Commissioner to compare;the’1:s,ig’hat’u,res V
found on the disputed document v_,is–a–t.»(ifstithe'”‘-a’d”nni.tted_*é
signatures of the deceased p|ainti»r’f;«…_V Inllthis regard..,:v:t,he trial
court can call in its aid, the ratio of clegciéiion._,reISlor’t.ed at ijLR 2007
KAR 3029 (MISS RENUKA vs. ‘-T,.i:+iAAMA.M/{Nhike}.’ATV.
In the said view..of thev–vrnatter,,~r.t_he7_w,ri.t,.”petition stands
allowed and the imptignedg,Vordéergstarids quashed.
The Trial Co_u rt.is’d_ire.cted.?’to reconsider I.A.22 keeping in
view the v_»o-l~3.se_r\.’a,tion “ma.d_e,_,supra and in accordance with law, as
eariy as,p:’.acti,_c’ab’i’e ‘an__d at any event, within a period of 6 weeks
:–V__from th’epd’ateV.a of this order is placed on its record.
‘,,Cont4en,ti”o,nsV” of both parties are kept open for
2 c.ons.ijderat’iQn.
I.
Sd/’~
JUDGE