IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREIf__
DATED THIS THE 13"' mm or JUNE, 2003
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE Am-I. vEN.sJGt3PALA'G'}xV E M'
WRIT PETITION No.112s/2im8:.'(c;§§:-- céc)if
BETWEEN:
K.S. Mahesh,
S/o Sadananda,
Aged 56 yeafg, » 4
we 4"' main _r6a_Q'-,;.:;;;, , *
Mahaiakshmi la*y ::>ut,V':.4 _ .
Next to ven*kateshwsi{vara 'enfupm, '
Batawadi,"Tu'mkur53?j21G1,"
Rep. by his"'e..;;écial 'Pewerxfi Attorney
Sri. Manish K Mahesh.
" Petitioner
. ?5Au;A«Raf na$h, Adv.)
g Smt. T,S'._Ru'drani,
«. W/o Ch'armrashekarappa,
' ..'Adéé-..59 years,
'R/'e..Vivekanda Read,
~ Tumkur~5721o1.
Respondent
‘ (By Sri. M.S. Rajendra Prasacl, Sr. Counsii)
This writ petition is riieci under Articies 226.’.a”n’u6,’?2k-2:4:.:”‘?’V”
of the Constitution of India praying to qLiash_.fthe_oif%:ier”—–.? ~
dated 3.12.2007 passed on I.A.No.1 fiIed_.,ut_id.er~.fGroofw K
XXXVIII Ruie S of the code of CivE:!i~Ptocec1uro”iiij;0S..No.*-,_ ‘
229K200? by the Civii Judge (Sr.Dn.’)___& ;C’.?.M*’a’t.__TuVnjk’ug’_ 7
which is produced and marked as Arinexore-H;~. _ _
This petition coming oii–_:fo.if% hééring _tti-isA”*:;i’aii,i,. that
Court made the following: ‘
7oaD§§tofo
Patitioner therein is ojoifintiiffiVVi’:ti’.I§,S.229/2007 on
the fine of tho Respondent
is the The suit is for the
passing: of! of Rs.59,G3,193/- with
future ititorést ‘eiiéi-‘zit:1/i;ostto:_:’:L’:it–1fendantfresponderst has filed
the 4§\v’\t’2’iifiiEI”¥4x ~-.statomtent;.. contesting the suit ciaim.
atjiiattitionor/pia.iA%ntifitiiétimed I.A.1 under Order 33 Ruie 5
l orégiiiiaigvttih.-§1~coun to direct the conoitionai attachment
of “t.heV___vs’uitf~~’ schedule property. Considering the said
iapwolicstion, an ex parte order was passed on 24.7290?
‘iowrdeting conditionat attachment for Rs.69,t)3,193/- or to
….fiirnish security. Before the said order couid be matte
absolute, the defendant flied her objections to I.A.1.
Considering I.A.1, objections thereto and after hearing the
V
ieamed counsel appearing for the parties, the
by its order dated 3.12.200? has rejected theV_epriiic’ai.tio’ri’. *
This writ petition is directed against ord’e’r–..:_’: ‘– _ ”
2. I have heard Sri. B. Rehiesgh, iea:ifned”eoiihsel.for %
the petitioner and Sri. Ms. _RaVjfeh_ora_ Presed, iéaarned
Sncouhsei for the respondeht-o’iidf~pierdeed,AV’the record.
3. It suit scheduie
property hae. to third parties
on petvitioraer has produced the
copies oiitheVsaie”.rieede;_:””executed by the respondent,
conveying the eoit~.vsched«€iie property, in favour of third
iiipartieei. ‘T328: I”r;_aIso«ét7:ited by the learned courisei for the
Epetitioiher’:*th’aii;;~.§_f?ter the impugned order was passed, an
apoii;etioii~ impieading of the purchasers of the
Lschedisie property had been filed in the trial Court and
r:.’th’e~.s-dine is pending consideration.
Since the suit scheduie property has ceased to be
the property of the defendant in the suit and that she has
\
/.\
admittediy sold the property to the third parties;”th.jeVnej:’1«’
cannot be any attachment of property, which 3
been soid by the defendant. The
has ceased to be the owner of tVhe.4_proo’er_ty;. shoot-egneufithe’;
schedule of the plaint. Hence, for
attachment of the plaint Vs§ct§.edt:’iVe”i.oftopelfty.’heevvtoetcome
untenabie. Even though, dismissed
I.A.1, in terms :_of”‘jA;tt;’e ‘:::Vo:z?cio.r.!.T’for different
reasons, the tn-e court, has to be
upheid, that has taken
piece, with tegerdt to.Vtho;’oIe%nt”sc’heduIe property.
Sv..«.5$t’vi.t’~B. Romeevh_,___tearned counsel for the petitioner
.tnet*,.:the sate consideration amount may be
vordereti.’—t’o VV’be”_”;attect1ed, considering the conduct of the
respondhentfeefendant. Since such a prayer was not made
“oefore*tn_e that Court. Hence it is not perméssibie for the
petitione’? to seek a prayer contrary to the one made in
I–«.VA§i’§t The petitioner is at iinerty txseek appropriate
/.-
erders, by making appropriate appiications in the
Court, to secure lis interat, with regard to the suit V iijjf
In View of the above, writ petition faiis aéid”iS
dismissed, subject ta the absewation§.:fia.ge. Aiiiai
K511′-