High Court Karnataka High Court

D S Prakash vs Govindappa on 16 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
D S Prakash vs Govindappa on 16 December, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.-.__

DATED THIS THE 16" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010'ff"j<--..:"'II.

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEh!UGOPAI'IH"¢'O;Ié/'DEA   V

WRIT PETITION NO.38198/2€3«1O(7.GiV§Ev--C--P6i   

BETWEEN:

D.S. Prakash, S/O Shamanna,

Aged 61 years 7'

R/a Doddathogur Viflage,       _

Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Tai'u.I<.    "..V:1P_E'TITIONER

(By Sri av. Mafia ReLdd*g...1'Adv=.)    if 
AND: 'E '  H  2 'E

1. GovindappEa',%"S/Oaiaate 
Aged about 7'{_) years,"  *    ' -
R/a Doddathogur Village;  "

Be-gu r Hobll, i3ara~g}4a|Iore"So[I.t'h

2. Muniyappa, ES/0 |a'te._V_VDOddamuniyappa,
Ag'é'd.abO:It'I8Q._.yearS,  """ 
R/0. SIcfdapura'VII|_a'g._g,

vartmn-.I.HToI:I%.,I.ganTgaTIIore South Taiuk. ;RESPONDENTS

 Sri 'I'~I.S;T'vaka*'gi!.i;;_rV;--;I'3'an, Adv.)

'.VTHIS"vIRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

"':2f/--.O'F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
gORDER DATED 30.10.10 PASSED ON I.A. 4 VIDE ANNEXURE--U

"-I..REJEECTfIENC..E'TO FRAME THE PROPOSED ISSUE NO.2

 '_O.S'.~NO.2062/07 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.),

 BANG.A_I-ORE RURAL DIST. ETC. ETC.



THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY--LTHE
COURT MADE THE FOE_LOWING:--  

ORDER

By an order dated 24.9.10 pass.ed~inA 1′

W.P. 6057/10, the Trial Court was directed A'(:’f:iS§’§'(3–F5_RAE’:

before the end of 2011. Thereafte_r}”~»t_he deferiadalrit “a.pp’eaar:s to R’ V

have indulged in filing series of—–Tdppl’i’c.ations;w… such
aPDlicat§on is I.A.4 filed under raise additional
issues. The Trial Court_ has allowed the
application in part issue No.1 with
regard to Iirnitatiionf:”i1:t:s:A_ However, the second
proposed issue ,»t’oR.hd’efen’dant acquiring the right by
prescription, = the defendant has filed

this writ peitition.

V “learned counsel on both sides and perused

R a,.,,t¢h.e writ petition, papers.

Keeping in view the averments at para 28 of the

‘VV.”_’-tan-itten”..statement, the proposed additional issue No.2 ought to

is

gs

have been raised by the Triai Court. In not raising the–___said

issue, there is irrationaiity.

In the resuit, the impugned order to the ”

raising the said issue, stands modified.

The Triai Court is directed to raids’

additional issue, try and disposeiiofithe shoit, the ”

aforesaid order.

VvntpefifionsfiandsaHowedaE;dfifing&;L*.

JUDGE

sac*