R/o Jumanai, ‘Ta1uka/ Dist: Bijapur.
RESPONSE. _V _ _
(By Sri Prakash R. Kulkarni, adv:-} ‘A
Civil Revision Petition flied ::pur;der’1’ASe(:~_.1»1_p5’_of’
C.P.C. against the order dated”1.24}/8’/20137′ .passe”d. in
o.s. No.1o4/06 on I.A.No.\fI_ on the ‘file ofvtiteytfil Add}.
C.J. Jr. 1311. Bijapur disfr1i$ISing the },A.v-p:fiied”‘wuhder”
See.4’7 ofC.P.C.
This Civil Revisiioi;.. Pe’tttiori’ jcworriing on for hearing
this day, the Court delivered thf;e=foHo_vei;ig;
f5qoneMear3
against the order
dated 06 passed by 111 add}.
Civil 1.A.VI flied under Sec.47
C .:re–{sponder1t filed O.S.104~/06 against the
petttionerétafor declaration of title and perpetual
*._inju.nctjo’r1. The petitioners entered appearance before
“‘C:v’the_wtria} Court flied I.A.V£ under Sec.47 C.P.C. to
hpvdiemiss the suit on the ground that the same is not
dvu
eoritentions after framing appropriate issues. The trial
court to decide the rnatter without being influenced by
any of the observations made in the impugned order. or
in this order.
6. Sri Ashok R. Kalayanshetty,
the petitioners relaying on two ‘t’}1tSl:eQuA:;*ftA’
in the case of BASHEER
MOHAMMED YOUSUFF repof£’ed,p 1npV_V1LRidos 3542
and another in the i{RlSI!NAPPA VS. TR.
GOPALAKRISHNA in I.L.R.
I996 Kar. bar under Sec.
47′ of enforce the rights
arisiiiggiku1iderl’*'{l*ieAi:”core__p1′<)r11i-se decree. There is no
dispute legal position. But in the
instparitiv ease is not seeking to enforce the
in O.S.No.l31/95. On the other
specific case of the plaintiff that
.vsubStE{£L1'(Ti1iri1() compromise decree in 0.8. No.13}/94»
V' 'gt.hE-1-'T*-properties are measmred and divided among
dtw
(1
themselves in terms of the compromise peiitiion.
Therefore, the judgments relied on by tlj1..e"eI 'e21:'I*1ie.cVi
Counsel for petitioners are not applicable t(':.__t'hvr:'ef.2i.L(:tSe' of '
this Case.
For the reasons stavte_§i
hereby dismissed. The tried tobtcieeiigie the matter
without being ebvsbervations
made by in the this order.
All the
OrderedTa?:;:0réfi11g§”7_’ ‘u
Lf A