IN ma HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA. ' «j :.-
DATED Tms THE 12% DAY 03£t"FIO1?l7;n}!£B!§}!'.s_oc;:.: BUSENESS
«i 'DI¥£ARWAB._
us;-11?: Rmimz
09:: BUSINESS
" " '~1:z;"0 'MAN GALWARPE'I'H
% Vs]-0 _Q:I#§¥SULAL MEHTA
AGED 43 YEARS
'RIO MANC}ALWAiK'PE'¥'H
"'DHARWAD
- ma
_ .
3
3(a) SMT SANGEETA mo RA§J.§U:?A
* 4' D.viA§f'x1fADV""%'--TVT._:--- '
(c1)' _ is;xa'r'LEi:::,A§5:av1
W10 SAM'PA'"1'HRAJ GANDHI
AGEDV58 YEARS occ HOUSEHOLD
R/0 YASH BUILDING
K--H_ANDEWAL LAYOUT
~ 'EVERSHINE NAGAR MALLAI) WEST
(«{2} '" SM'I' KAMALADEV:
W/O RATANCHAND BHANDARI
AGEd 52 YEARS OCC HOUSEHOLD
Ii'/O C/O SHRI GURU TRADING CO
ILAKAL
(1) SMT SEEMA
w/0 RAJENDRA KOTHARI
AGED 35 YEARS occ HOUSEHOLD
R /0 13 601 SAFAL COMPLEX
9-J
N ERUL
NEW MU MBAI
7. SRIJYOTI SHIARAVANKUMAR JAIN . V " 4. I I
AGED 39 YEARS, GOG"-;BUSiN--ESS A " _
ws CI-IOUGALA MULTANMAL Arm C0 2
R10 VITTAL BUILDENG V "
SUBHAS ROAD
DHARWAD
3. SR1 SATISHKUMIIR ${EN¥IV}{AND JAIN
AGED 40 YEARS <3c:c»'BusIr«1,Ess
PARTNER _ 'M18 ..Cf'IO.UG£&LA MULTANMAL
AN7§~)I'C-£3 I
_R_]O§VI'}TAL B1_1ILI)I'N_(}'- "
;"SU'BH.€s;'_3_ RO_A_D"~~_ I ' »
..ID£:m'I2wAD..V I '
.. . RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT I”.->..§;v’:.*I”‘I’~II_c>’rI is FILED UNDER ART225 AND
227 OF’ ‘I*iIE’ $ONSI’!TUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
QUASH THE I VIMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.9.2008
PAESEB BY THE ,PRL.CIVIL JUDGE ( JR. DN.) AT
A &DH.AR’WAI3..EN QSI37/2000 E’I’C.,
— PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
*-f£33.ARIN{§;TfI1S DAY THE COURT MADE ‘f’I-IE FOLLOWING:
OED ER
The pefitioncr arraigned as defendant No.3( C ), one of
§t}:1e legal representatives of deceased defendant No.3 in OS
No.13?/2090 on the file of the Pr}. Civil Judge ( .Jr.Dn.) at
Dhaxwad, grieved by the order dated 20*’ September,
2008, mjccfing I.A.4O to set aside the ex parte _
8.10.2007 has invoked Art.227 of t13C>A’>VCOflSfi1’tit5′(.)’j:.i. ” –« .,
2. The petitioner when defe:.1fiis~§z1:fp_1«.\Io.'{3..’.(c) ,
consequent upon the death of original
suit, was not served ‘ post and
therefore, the She court: served
notice on the’ ~:![kjfi) 61EfA;;yu§aIiCation, which
was held was placed exnarte by
oxeer,:igi§ie«1ef court. It at-mam that
after tfie and the $1111: was set Clown for
arguxnentsg’-.t.11c claiming to have come down to
filed IA No.40 on 16.9.2008 to set
L’ order dated 3.3.0.2007. That application
opp¢’+;¢d’:n U by filing statement of objections of the
“V ‘denying the avennents in the aficlavit
” » naéiczgxnnsanying the application and specifically contending
on the ciemise of defendant No.3 on 21.8.2005, the
V’ “appenant No.3 in RA 164/2004 calfing in question the
§udgment and decree in (38 138/2609 before the I} Add}.
Civil Judge (Sr.D31.) Dhazwad, an application
L.Rs. was filed stating that the deceased .,
legal heirs and that defendant No.5-[ in4oTs;r~£’o. 13?.)
none other than appellant in tdi-2-zed”a3apea1′.a:;i,i$e1o’sifigA.f}:eFL
addiess where the “No.4 at V
Dhaxwad.
3. The of the parae" 5, more the fact that the
petiticiiiee uthéio r§6.’é1;” in RA 164/2904 asrising
out of” in OS 13812000 declined to
accept thefriea that he resided at Mumbai based upon the
‘oopA3}’Vof—-reeeipt dated 4.9.2008 in the name of
issued by Ekalavya Housing Co.op. Society
E, preceded by a demand notice dated
hos well as the certificate in form No.29 under
V’ ~ (2) of Sec.5 of the Maharashixa State Tax on
uVI?rotA’essions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1975
V WA1::11ext1;re~F’. In my opinion, no exception can be taken to
1
the findings, reasons and the conclusions _
trial ceurt.
4. To a pointed qficsfion ‘0f “fl1is leéméd L.
counsel for the petifioner was to ” ‘:0u;t; either to
a passport or ration _ _drivvi¥)A.g v]iccnce to
estabiish the Fgfitioncr. In the
absence of substantial
legal efideflce–::_bf_ the fa_<fif.'iV'%iss1:¢:, "in my considered view,
tk tnal' com1:was. fullyv """ I;Io.4{).
The writ jévit11Guf–,_1n r=:i'LiVt and is aoconiingiy
Sd/i
Judge