High Court Karnataka High Court

D Basha vs Smt Haisabai on 10 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
D Basha vs Smt Haisabai on 10 July, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
1:»: THE: HIGH €;3{}E;§i-?E' (:22: E<j§R£'~iPa'i'Ai{A AT ESANGALCER ,.  

-1...

BATES THES 'THE 10%? my £319' JULY, 20438  "

B331-i3'()I?¥£.¥§3

THE H{}N'BLE: §¢1R.J'US'I'i(.?$} RAV; Ma.:L§:~g:A?;f;a:'AA'  "

WRFE' i3i}i"i'i"i'I€;)N N."7"'.r{§§%.a-_ YEARS.  _  '

mg'? as  '   

§»0PALA§>LIfi&      

MAGABI Rj:;+;s1§;~,V E£'d5§Gz%L£}RZFZ~i£3   H
    aPE,%irf:'10M:R

V',

{By Sm: M' $14::'vA§éRAigA$};;'A:_§}smL:Ai1'E::)

AND:



 . Sm CHAEVFSAABAI
. me.) :,m?55-- .:f,'>21.3':'A{s1R BEG

  A;;";E'§: A:3c:t;;%*;é $9 YEARS

' §?eé;'.::xji§ C: §_1">R_E~E;LT, G(')f~'ALAPUF3:A

2%'? CRzS:ir_&'1_  

{I9

'3'.

gm: H,AY;§'1'?;3.E:LYAr;s:'mA--. 
W/ii.) L,A"f'E- 1131'-<',v4.s_,:4...:_1's'2iV% = 
R/AT SQLUR "{;.CiB:;:.. 
:sAA:'1:fAL%:_n'-:»~V_  »  «
E3ADéGALC}E%E3§; k*:;iRA,L- E)1::§'l'=i%£(Z'I'
 44 J, _  -  RE3SP{)N.{)f§N"i'SS
:~a;s,;»':y1¥::fAregx;Ara'A339.-;:;A*rE:s, AI)VO{2A'1'}33S, FOR R12)

iriri

 *f1~a;;%3f x;:£?<"§f:"':3E;r;f::%;'1;~»: IS m,,:~;::;> UNDER AR'1'l(":LES 225»

 55 22'?-.{::::'' 'f'}:iIii j---C{§>NS'l'i'I'U'1"1C}N 0:2' mam PRA';'EN(3: TO
 "c;;::A:§H T{_'}~IE:1_.~ §.?*y'1§%'LJ(3I\EE1i) 022991;? IN 30: FAR AS mm
'z._ALL0W1N<:s fr}:§;'AMENDMEN'r IN RESPECT OF PRAYER
is-icgage'-PART:"i'-svgfi AND C£}f*éSEQUE1N'I"LY' "I0 ALLQW I.A.NC).I1.
4: -.9»: (_x.S'.N~3,:z?4/94 PASSED BY THE cxvn. JLISGE {JR.DN.)

  "-VJ§viF'C§,'wMA{}&Di GRA§\?T'if€Cx LEAVE TC} AMEISEQ 'THE PLAIN'?

 "V-.,%£3*g%.%m;:%: GRDEER £')A"I'E{} 8.8.2006 VIBE ANNE§XURE:~E.

 Tuis PE'"£'I'£"I€.}N C:{)M'iN'G cm 90;: Pi?ELiMINARY
  M:-:;aR1N{} 554 ''13' GROUP 'FEES;-E DAY, "1"HE§ ccaum' MADE: THE
 HE'OLLOW1NGs;-

<:<'*é3L--



ORDER

The petitioner seeks for a w1*i.i:'”‘e-f. C€§ftiOIfé”3i’i’4 ti}

quash the order dated 8-8-2006 paseeei

Q.S.Ne.”Z74/1994 by the 1ea:£’1″1e<i–v.:f3.i3I:i.1 u(§ge {«::}'1i1i4i£§.f

Divi$ieI1)& mgpe, Magadi, vide 13';1f?.1'"l§f32'¢i.1n_:i'x"'t"3VV–\E..'

2. The trial eeurt while isaesiilg the “iIi;p{1g:1ed erder

has taken ime (3€3I}Si§;i€31_’8.ti{‘:fi tkxet suit has

been fiieci :v’§i*i’ ewéfieieeas the present
3~}§);}3iieatin anti there being an
inerdi:1ate. delafie’ application the same
Sieetzici ..e.eeepife€ié.V The petitiener is unable to

Show etxfiieiefzt. that prevented him from making

T’ appiieatiejr eueh a belated stage. Mereever, the

W ” xfa<::tief3 33 shown in the piafint 311d the cause of

"«. ":ae_:ie1'2V_Vin filing the said appiieatien is different. 8:) else

VTt1e{4e"reii:e:' seugiit fer in the piaint: and in the prepesed

" A .,;a1i'ie:1d:11ent. is <ii15i"erent.

méizi—~–»

3. E have heard thfi 1€:a:;:1:1r::d csunsel appear”ing_ ::»1f;«._ _ ~._

bath the sicitig.

4? The iearned counsel appearing VT

unabie to shew as to what prairfifitegi hifn.__i’I’0I;:i

an application at. an pf The
application being filed aftef 9 years,
the delay which, :10: V .tf:?;C: petitioner,

would go ta tliié “{ >i.’ -do not find any

reason to entertain ‘has, been filed
after a peziod of 9 }?(3aI’S.

5. For I=:=;a©§>’ns, the: ‘Vi€’¥’it petifnn being

d.evoida”0f_1:1ex*its,” regectcd.

Iudg5

rsk