IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 8" DAY OF DEcIEI\2IETEIé.if2bT09 . EEE0RE_: THE }?£ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANATID Bfi 'R_A.RB$DY If I WRIT PETITION Noyfztfisyz OE 2009 (GMT%PC) BETWEEN: ' 1. Son" of C'.VR';N'aray'aj;.:;A'SI2v§;m'yy, ' *
EU
.S1T*It’.MaI1jiIj1-:2,’ % V = ‘
D;;ughte.I’ of’ :1 I*zI’yr.;TIi’a: ‘S W a my,
A ged abQuI- 3′ ._Yea TS,
;_R_aIv’.i Prasad; —– ~ ”
_ Si.I1ce*dvied during the pendency
— Vthéeyqqeige, represented by his
Vn}I.)_’€~i3€1f;fh6 only iega}
R~ep{‘eSentative Smt.Sar0jamma
‘ a “Wife of Narayana Swamy,
vvfiged about 65 Years,
” -.,1’V’AE.§i”are residents 0fSubba1fayanapete,
Chickba11apu1’..
” Chiekbaliapul’ District. …PET.ETI_ONERS
(By Shri.S.N.Aswathanarayan, Advocate)
Z
AND:
1. Smt.K1’ishnam.ma, _ _ V
Since deceased by her Legal 3’e’;5res;«entaitive-S_ii’~v V L”
1(3) Ramakrishna,
Son of Krishnamma,
Aged about 70 Years,
1(b) H.V.G0pal, 4_
Son of Krishnamni:i._i_” ” _ A
Aged ab()13_t 65 Years, ‘
Respondents «3 1ee’idii1g_?,iiat ”
PU
sukunaghauajkutkg =;
Chickba_1V1api1.f’Di«3;iie; ~
2i
mt; Ra n»
Da__u4ghte1′ ‘Qf Di(>dpd’a.ri;iiiii1iah,
Wife ..0f*Changa.Iaiayappa,
‘ ” Aged abonf 73 Years,
V . hf{I’1’E’;’ ‘V
_ _DQo1fp’um0gsa1a,
‘-iPuneanun
Chi’:-001: ‘District.
2 .. :’S;n.t.4’I(arna1an”nna,
“Daughter of Doddaramaiah,
Wife of Krishnaswamy,
Aged about 78 Years,
Residing at Seppinabeedi,
Ch_ic:kba11apu1~ City.
Smt.i\5a1’ayanamma,
Daughter of D0dd8.1’2flm’d.iE1h,
6
Wife of Cheiuva1’ajuIu Naidu,
Aged about 75 Years,
Resi_di_r1g at Deer No.1400,
1 V
5″‘ Cross, Hanumanthanagatgg’
Banashankari ‘1″ Stage.
Bangaiore.
Smt.R£ijamm21, ”
Daughter of D<)d_claram.ai_21tiV;A' ~ __ '=
Wife. of Ramaiah,'~~..A_
Aged about 70 Years.,. " D
Residing at S0ppinati3e_ed'i;'VD
Cltickbatiiapur * " "
Smts. Sit£tra:d.a1iHfia.;_ __ ”
%ma.ugmér elf:_D0dda.1f$ttiati.ahV,_
Wife 0t’,N§1t:.ujaj,.4 _
“-Aged about eat1fS’,—- ‘
idjng at A’V–ztd V ”
Che’;1r1zti, ~_
A ” Ta1taiinadu’State.
, _’Sn:t,C«handrika,
‘ 2 Late Krishnaswamy,
‘A.g_edab’0ut 55 Years,
Ir?1.e.s”ij;1ing at Subbarayanapete,
u “Chi_’ckba1Iapu1’,
-Chickbailapur District.
Prashanth,
Son of Late. Kri_shr1a5wamy,
Aged about 35 Years,
Residing at Subbarayanapete,
Chickbaflaptat’,
Cltickbailaput’ District.
$
9. Pradeep,
Son of Late K:-ishnaswamy.
Aged about 33 Years. V
Residing at Stlbbarayanapetes
Chickballapui’, V 4′
Chickballapur Di_st:’ict.”i_
10. R.Narayanaswan_ty,
Son of D()dda:’a:i_j1éiah,
Aged about 76 Yez£1’S;’,’ ‘ A _
Residing at Subba.i’;1:ya11apete, A
Chickbgillztptir, ‘
Chmkbdhfifiuffimfiet ‘pzdll””i .u RESPCWHDENTS
(By fo3rl1espondent.l\Io.5)
4;’ I, .3,’ .1, «g-
.,. .1. .i .,. .,.
This V\fVvritl”E3_eltitioi1iistiled under Articles 226 and 2.2.7 of the
Constitt1ti.o’r’t _()3″. india praying to quash the orders passed
F»;E3..P.No. I/99″on__I.A..NOV dated: 26.8.09 on the file of the Civil
. .VJii1dige”~'(‘Sehior Diviision) and CJM Chickballapur vide Annexure*F
‘ and e*t.9f§’~
V W1’it Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’
groiipthis ‘day, the Court made the following: —
‘” ORDER
The petition coming on for P:’eliminary Hearing (B~Group),
is Considered for final disposal. 6
5
77. The petitioner is aggrieved by the application of
respondent no.5 under Order Vlll Rule IA, seeking leave of this
court. to produce documents in support of the w1’itte”n_s’t«ate.rnent.
The same having been accepted, the petitioner isi:beforie”etiliisilcotirt
on the ground that the Release :Dee’ci«vvh.ich;« song’-it to be it
produced along with the written stateinent wastghe’ *:-;u.bjie:et..friatter
of earlier proceedings in a Re’gVu’lar Second”sa.€\.ppeal as well as
Revision Petitions, where*i.n this in”a,Regular Second Appeal
on the already held that the Release Deed
executed.._bythe ‘father plaintiffs could not involve the shares
the sons an’t£..yvouldi’;1t best bind the father’s share alone. In this
. View tlieimzittei”, the efficacy of the release deed having been
‘–co-nsideredingsecond appeal. and the same having attained finality,
there isiio purpose served in respondent no.5 seeking to produce
in tiheydeed alongwith the written statement and it is only in order to
éprocras-ti.nate the proceedings, that the defendant has resorted to
such an application. Therefore, it warrants interference. In view
of the contentions being available?) the petitioner ~ plaintiff, it
cannot be said that the order passed would in any w’ay.iprejudice
his interest or affect the merits of his case.
Acc()t’din_g1y, the petition is disposed of :§i.i:I:>e4_rtj’
petitioner to urge all contentions as regat1’dvsi’the _sa~i.d”rev1.easeC.eeCi–… ]
before the triai court.
JUDGE
nv_