IN THE IIIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3"1 DAY OF' DECEMBER. 2008
BEFORE
THE HGWBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.Am
.No.329zgoo3
:
1 KRESHNAPPA
SIC) RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT ARADESHAHALLI,
.,¥N¥DANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT. 'L _ " _
PIN CODE-562 110. V 1 l_'+'E'I'I'I'£ONER
(BY sm: s K NAGARA?H§¢'a.. Ari§9v.3
AND:
1 SOMANNA _ »
S/O B.M..S.HAE1ANޤA_ ._
AGED A.'$ou'M:.a YEA}§'S,_ '
R/AT NQ.32, --3YA*§7:*.RA§'AN.A,Pi;¥RA, ?
BANGALORE._NOR'I'H.'FAI;£JK;-.
BANGALORE-5£3£)0é'§2. _ '
2 RAJANEAL S /O V.ENKATAPPA
AGE'.~D{:ABCvUT 34 Y"EARS,
' R/19;'? AR;fiDE'SAHAHALI)i""
KUN3£"i.NA'HQB'§~..-I,
' DEVANAE~!ALI;!"' TALI}K,
L'BAl't¥GALf}F£'E' _DI$T'RIC'I'. .
PIP! CODE-56:3 £10. RESPONDENTS
.{BY’SRI: s MEJASHEKAR, ADV.F’OR C/R1}
_ –.’:I’HIV;3..4CRVIV–“”iS FILED 25/3 215 OF’ cpc AGAINST THE ORDER
¥I_I)’ATE -S 04.0€~.20£)8 PASSED IN M1SC.N0.2/2002 ON THE F’iLE OF
g’I’H_E»_Pi?._L.CEVIL JUDGE (SRDNJ BANGALORE RURAL DiS’I’RIC’i’,
‘ BANGALQRE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED 11/0 9 RULE 13 GP’
Afiéfi ORDERING TO RESTORE THE SUIT OS.NO.342/95 FOR
‘ ‘ V . .,p1si>osAL AFRESH on MERITS.
‘I’HiS PETI’I’§ON COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
CQURT MADE THE F’OLLOWING:
QQEE
This revision petition is directed against the order
in Misc.No.2/2002 dated 4.5.2903 on the file of the
Judge (Sr.Bn.), Bangalore Rural District.
2. Petitioner herein had filed) su.«;t’e«.LTro: ;
performance of a contract in O.S.No._342 /’1.A§95. ”
was decreed ex«parte on 24.1 1.2oo1.’**z#i§§t:.ms§ond¢n:f”de£§§&;a§t
filed 2: Miscellaneous APP1iC8fib1lx”N0f.2’IV¥ifl§’iCr Rule
13 of CPC for setting aside objections
were filed for the saiel aafiplicatiieeé» file respondent
also evidence by the petitioner
hexein. The “t?.1.ev”evidenee of PW1 and
non {fling petitioner herein to the
Miscelianeous that. any amount of the
c:g>s$*exa;p..§e:J,efien t11eVVv’__§§bfeence of the pleadings (objection)
carries 11:3 valueein. eye of law.
3.7 petitioner has not filed ehjectzien to
‘fiiiialicafion, nor in the cmss–<z:xam:i11ation,
Ihaés. Vvizreen elicited, 3 find that, the Court below
" evidence on record, has set aside the ezoparte
' particularly when suit is for one for specific
parties required to be given reasonabic
-3-
opportunity. Hence, in my opinion the order passed by the court
below does not call for interference.
4. At thia juncture, both the caunsel submits that, the
date be given for appearance in O.S.No.342/ 1995.
directed to appear on :2.1.2oo9 before 1;:fh¢:::f§r1_.
(Sr. 1311.), Bangalore Rural District.
Accordingly. this revision petitioti”‘siénds
r %Iudqe
*AP'[.a-.