'*w. "
IN THE'. HIGE C{3{}R'I' OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT' BENCH AT GULBARGA
DA"i'ED 'Ems. THE 25% DAY' ()1? MAR;:§~1 * '-
BEFORE»
TEE HOIWBLE MR,Jus'1':cE:4S.N;TsAT§;a:¢;é.R:§?é§_raA*
WRIT ¥'E'I'I"§'EON N?).'8Q84i§}v§3{)G9_{("§i§§.?§;'P€31
BETWEEN: F' » . V
BAWASA S/O MA£<."?UI%iS£a G}-{iN:---';:Hi}'E;.LI A
AG}:";:63 YEARS .
II2;oTuRAKANA_GER: '
TQ, siiszasxax ._ ;_ .4
firs? EIJAPGR *
{By S§ .'VT{3', * _;C%i§{§¢A5::~;E§'1'?i, A'"Li¥i;é't3CATE3
--. * = ' - PE'T§'I'EC)NEi"<?
A\T1D?. .
1. ;MA'ra4SA.'3 .
'V gm NAB¥sA CHSNCHOLLE
1533; 58 YE:AR$«
'*{}CC;~AC':f~2ECULTURE.
_ fiuzaazgasa
"*S}'f.f)_ B5;§:'bA=:3;sA C'i~£EN€:I~§(}LLE
Ac;E:';_ 54 YEARS
, AGRICULTUR E
3: * V HZUSENBASHYA
VS/£3 E%ANE}AG{SA CHINCHGLLE
AGE: 56 YEARS
GOG. £§C3RICUL'I'URE
F 4 HASANSAB
S/O GGNSAGESAB CHINCHCILLE
AGE: 48 YEARS
OCC' AC§RICiI,}L'Z'URE
an
CEUDUSA
S;/O PEERASA CHINCHOLLI
SENSE DECEASED BY LRS
5(A} SM'? DAVALAEAE
WXC3 GUDUSAB CEWNCPEOLLX
AGE 55 YRS, OCC. AC}RICU£.'£'§,§R'E'----.
5(3) BIQBU
S/'G GUDUSAB CEHINCHGLLI
FKIEE; 333 YEARS '
QCC. AGiQICUL'I'L§RE
ALL-ARE; R/O .
'I'URAE§ANAGER£,' _ , ~
TQ, SENDAGI, DIST; B:JA:?*t_.;;;
" ...RESP{")-NDENIS
This;"'i'?..P.;1£s';V--_Vf"iit::(§; __§jncie:*_Artjglas 226 and 227 cf the
C0nstif£i{iGT.n;?£3f Eguash the impugned. Qfiifir
on Misc.'App]i{5:£iijio£i c;¥.t.8..6.2(}()'? iaassed by thf:
1ear11edA Qifisil J1:{igé" (Jr. F}:i.')V Sinciagi, pmciuced at !5\IiI1€X11I'f:-'
B. V. 1% " V t'
. .P. coming on for pxelimizlaxjy hearing this day',
the fi}110Wing:~
GRDER
AA W'I'i'{ pzsztition is filed chafiengiug the ordaz' Ga:-:~3d
passed in {Xvi} Misc. Appiication N<:).7/2005
VV 'IK:'fiS'{(}I"i31g the F.D.P,N0.5/1997 which was dismissed on
10.16.2002 for 3:10:1--pr0s€€:ution.
ii./L»:,4E
2. The facts leading to this writ petition the
petitioner herein is first defendant in O.S.N_ci_§5"3}
by the first responéent I}€2"'ff':iI). who was the
suit seeking partition and si3:Apa1ja.te } @4233";-3_ef$'si6;.1'-..__inV.,I. s:uit"----
schetiule pmpertics.
3. It is the case: of suit was
decreeé by judgm€I11; _é;fld .31? ha% 1;f4zh sham in
the Suit sC3;1e c_i111€: ~ '§:i1all.enged by the
petitioner h"E'L{"é§Ii i.*1. said appeal Came
to ijié" the first respondent
{P131533}. syraccsdizlgs in mp No.57/1997,
which CSazn e fit: be ‘diSIIliSS€d for nomprosecution on
mgagg. :1-{~31 respondent/piaint:ifl’ filed a
V p€tit:i::;1:: in Civi} Mis<:,Appiicati<312 N057] 2005
of the 0117131" cf dismissa}. of F.D,P. which
sub$£:'qué11fly came to be allowed on 8.6.200?
4. The: case 0f the pe:t:’5:1’one1″ herein is that the
respondent While filing the miscefianeous pefition has not
fiieei the 33335 with an application seeking eomionation of
in/3
be disposeci of on merits, it is not open for the: respandent
now to raise objections in this WI’ii}11I’,iSdiCii0I1. »V ” ‘
65 On perusai of the entim records,_.ituis :
irztention of the p€titi.O11€I’ §1e=:rc:i11I» is ngyi j.=:<$'.g3;$'1_)c;sé' 'ti1c: £5r;:1«f;r
allowing the miscalianeaus j;;::?E4i'£io11«Vx":;n 'the g:0{;.n<fi L.
is some technical irregulaxit§3,}""%»j:f§»r1~';{: fifacfidfixt akiowing
the mificefianeous pefiffiozi, is to see
that the 119.9. §_t;a::ea and the
respondent] his share in
the suit S$5i#é%iH%é. to the decree passed by
the 4' suit. It is obvious that the
petitio:1'e'iL'__;r1e:feii": up with this hiciden agenda,
thzfigjefoifi Cogxrt holds that there is no merit in this writ
. ' petii;i{;»n., Hétztce the same is dismissed, Witlmut any ortiier as
SW.
10933