Iul'm'Ifl ............ .... .......mm-. nmn _wguu: ur nnxnuunikn 2-nun count OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-ms:-q count or KARNATAKA |-ac; IN wax 3133 song? GF KRRfiAIAEA.A? BANGA§3RE 3; x ngamz was THE 18"' am' or sE9m~IBEn.V_. éGG_8Cf} BEFDRB THE HBR'ELE MR. JUSTICE §,§KgfiTIL j "v
tr. P. 24:22. 533 9;2aas{é:s=:ecP¢;’–. . ‘
BE’!’li’EEl\}
MAHE3fiCHhNBRfiGURU “T* z_fi,
aim Lars sazvnsamm g
Assn ABOUT 42 YEs._ V
axe BEKKALALE;V13LfiEE”, .V V_–.»-w.
KGPPA. ‘£-§t’.)3{.’_f,__ ” _: . PETITIOHER
<33' 5ri=%:a '
EH}? :
w c aawmmv-A Z ”
ns;9 cfixflngnsaxxnkantnv
‘- , man E1393’? mfras
‘mxm;v3Va3’mEmaawn.vILLAsE
canmgarxmfia; V,_
£§0b”*}’*’£.a’¥Cif BE?EI€°:.LP;LE V3{£.:P:.hGE
/fi'” xnPPA,amEL1,jmnmnvA … nnsreunsuw
.§f,, :3y Sri; K L snsznxvns, Anv ran CIR )
_ 1’%A%. *a~3:s ans. £122.39 324333 mrzcnzs 226 Ann 227
:53 firs csexswxwzzwznza cs’ mam PRAYIFIG T0 QUASH
An THfi ansax Rnsszn B? THE LEARNED AflfiITIORAL
Elvin sums 433.13:-1.: nmma an I.A.¥~ID.11 IN
Ci.S.?6E?’3.23’i.éf1Q9-§ HT. 31.3.2535 UNIIKR RHNELE.
A313 3.1; L3? THE APPLICRTIGN ?K L333 BY THE
wpfl
“‘”””‘”””‘”‘* ‘”‘*-“t’A V.’-«Fy:-«”~»¢ISI Ur i\AKNA!AKA H§€5H COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIG
PETITISHER men Hum man nzcwms
nrpazcnwzmm FILED 3? was PETITI3NEfir VE§ku”E'”
A?-!E!=Emfi3E%3T :3 3:13? am PROPER $1§,9__REQUVIRE;S_f’:.ffiR’_’
FUEL any CGPIPLETE Anaunzcmxcu gar $:;1*=1F_.’
M5 3.9. 13 C0?-!I!*l(5 __ G’£.~§ son: ;*1aL2.i’i~1::_:si?«..I1m’–5
Hxanzmc wars may, run coax? fikps was F3§Léw1$§:
Pertititkzxér. ‘ii; ‘i :1″fi _1’e’:».:;1,::..2:if:i:’ in the
caurt Li;’-:’;awf..; 1;; “is”-. ;¢::ha¢..£1’iei1¢:ing this order
ciataé; h on I .A. II in
0.S.HG§231.xfl..99éV V.3:’fi;f§_§I2;iiing the pzzayer for
” -at tiiép-l«aint.
2. has filed the suit seeking
::el3′;e:.f asrzf declaration, that he is the
owner in lawful paaseasizsn 9f the
ficlmdule prep-msty. He has alga sought
yezmanent injun:;:tin. restraining the
deifamdant from intarrfaring with his peaerzseful
paaeeaaion aver the suit schedule 1.:-rcajparty.
3%
€33
M …… .,..,……. wr .w…mmm mt.:x1 wunn ms KARNATAKA Ham: count or KARNAYAKA mm: mum’ cw mtmmnm ‘run
The suit :13 filed in the year 1994.yaa§;:;j
partias let in their evidence arm! the 3
wag pasted for arguments. ‘She ,§a§tgi1méi:1t:x ‘O-‘E._’_ ~.,;
bath parties were heaxrct. Céauxiaol V
plaintiffwpetiticner haz’e”3;2fi._V’»v’a=x;;ugViii:. to
give reply and furnifih tatiéné, to
the argaxments A§:anva §V:s_g,%;.Ai.VV ‘A’»<ii{4};g£'endant'3
aaunaefi… for reply
cf the '2y':r-:3-2005, an
appli ' 'Rule 1'? mi CPC
camé t=oVV'A'?;iau" muenduaent: of the
gv?…aint-é, .. jhgé intandsed to amsnd tha
Vp§i.5.iV::%;té:' E»'.'i:,'y..Q«'in¢::§§§;"$}:Serating an alternative
that if for any reason,
the Aa::_-f::uz;ui"' to calm: to the czcnnclusiacan
th e-… §lainti£f was not in possession of
schedule property tha cauxrt might
far delivazy cf pszsaseasion of tha auit
' " '–«:§é:b.ed213.a prcspazty .
smmmdmm'
.. . ..u.A:-A ;…»x.:aunn ur nnmvninawt HIGH CUUR'l' OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA E-i1GH (SOUR? OF §(ARM&TAKA Hlfié
3. The Tzial Cauzt has rejected the gray§§1fl x
far amanfimsnt an tha ground that i5$fl§$HW€#Q”
framefi an fl-4-1996 and vidégcg fifié Igt in; }_E
matter was heard and naaxzy aft§& a 1a§g§.bfi_u
ten years fram the date Sf fgafiinfiifif fihe
issues, the plaintiff had %$d%g# t¢ fiia the
applicatian seeking gménfifiéfifi &£§;§E&t there
was &bse1u§§;fi¢ §§_ :éa$§fi&E fdzw making an
apyliaatia$_.$%§T£$afiw5§%§#g#§ w$taga. The
“Quit h%% é1$§§§%#”&_%§§t #%§ even a aingle
reasan w@g’gi?e§7fa$*fi1ing tha agplicatian
at th§=ha1&£e§ stage; Except Btating that
£§’_i?fii8f &u;ti§iifiity of praceedinga the
§lain:if§?g$é$»faeeking amendment, no athar
2 exp1Aazzat;;’m .i’~V’é:as cfifaxed for the delay in
‘” 3 fiiigg ‘Hike appiication. Ends: finch
¢i:¢um&tanmaa, the aanrt below has parsuadad
‘ ita%if ta refiect the awplicatian.
4. Eearnad Semis: Counael Sri.H.Shivayga
aypearimg for the patitionsr aantends that
E(
W-um m mmmmm mm Wa.m ur mxnmnm mun !L;£.’tUK’l’ 05 acmumnm mm-1 mum er mmmmm Wm mum’ W ammmmca HM
the amezzdment dramas net alter tha z:.attu.3na-«_..¢~f__j’
the auit not dams it introduce 3
cause af aatian and therezfcarég
to: have been allowed. In s u5:”;)’:>rt “
cantention, ha relied mnz Sc 3359 in v~,i's. Ammwm also diam the ta tha judzgmant aft if; tha case of G MEQHANAIQ-m mt: mmmz: caviar CASES 25 to
<::a:::;*:.t:em«:'i–v _th«:'{t. _ incofzais tent or alternative
31$-at taxvéfifby the plaintiff by way
<::f§– 3.-tang as cause cu'. station did
mat Ag"-3?:
°§«.f–..V_V’*H.%ring haaard tlm learned counml far
‘V[ : f$.:he–;petitinmar and upcm carafu}. perinatal Gf
téxe materials can reccrd, I do mat find any
illegality ax: errant zzzf jurisdiction in the
wards: yaaaeci by the cuuxt belaw. Plaintiff
1%
…. ….,. “MFH wuarv-nnnwo’1Ir”Il\-l’\ l&I\i3l’l£’I _.\r1V\’niP’EJl\I W N-\Iwum.uI\n mm Wm: 01* mxmmm a-ma COURT W xAmMMA. mm-I mum W EmRNA’3’Af€A Hlmi
amenfiments axe allcwed mare lib&I&lkff%h§fi’ r\
these which are saught to be made a£t§$ fi§e_T
commgnmament cf tha tri§l H
cnncluaian theraaf.
6. In the instan§ }ca§;g t$@* tzi;1 is
cumpiatefi, evan_azgu¢efi§s Q%ke”§iE§ hdvan¢ed
anfi at the gfifigfi of zg§i§r$§ th% plaintiff
the pre3en;:__ “V”v.g,€iv.V’laaci that ta-o
withcutfl#¥#i§$;Q% §nfi %gas%#§ for tha daisy.
finder su¢h_tircam$ta§c§sj it can net be said
that gthg ¢¢a;t”1h§1§k has ccmmitted any
‘ £i1a§aiifiy: in téfecting the applicaticn.
H$”£1}::~$.%_; ~’:VIi’:a_.{*’:e.A’@T’-.}:r*ieing no merit in thia writ
. ,¢?stitianf”:héAsame is dismissed at tha stage
“*W @£’a$miaaion.
sal-
Iudqe
a
*~.’~’~
in
¢£,{ aftez£ ,