1
!N THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CJRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATES THE: THE 24?" DAY OF JULY 2908
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTRCE N.K. PATEL I %
wan" Psrmou N0 353 of 2093 1 GM1--ۤPC::%%:j:
BETWEEN
'E
'H:
L___1a; "
Q12.
MAHEBUBKHADRE V
350 BURANASAB ..iAHAGiRDART
SQHCE DEAD 8'? H13 LES,
AB§3ULLAKfi.i-!{}Ri,
MAHIBUBKHAEBRE
JAHAGRDAR,
AGED 36YEAR.S, " ._ V
GOG: R<3RiCUL.TkJRE, --
Bt§--3§JA£'£ _ .
W!Q.MAH£BUBKH£xBR§ .eAHAeRmR§
AGED 4!.-':_YEARS,«."~.
cscc; 2:§QL3$EHf3.LE3'*J§fQRI§;_b '
st-_maNAi5Ai<sH:
_ §_{3!Ok?»i1AHfBUEKi-EADRE .fAHAG!RDAR,
436$;-'_{3 2:2 YEARS,' ..... ~ -
" oc::;V+4<:::-$35:-aom womg
V _ ;»«;Aa£--?§5aA'::~4Aa.2AaAa
'- __ 31o'.vA4Aa2au,;e;<t:::: HQUSEHOLD worm
t30§J8EPEERfi\ JAHAGLRBAR
Si{}.MAH!BU8KHf&DRt JAHAQREARE
A555? 24 'ZEARS,
QCC; AGRECULTURE,
lf-J
'ig. YASNHN JAHAGRDAR
B!O.MAHEBUBKH!5\DR{,
AGED 23 YEARS}
OCC: HOUSEHOLO WQRK,
1h. MALEKHA JAHAGERDAR
BiO,Mfi.H!BUBKHAQR£}
AGED 22 YEARS, .
OCC: HCMSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE RIAIGOLASANGE,
T3118 BAGEWADL
BLJAPUR DESTRQCT.
{av $R£ ' UMESH V MAMABAPUR, ADVCECATE-gm
AND : V
ABDULLAHQURBRE V
SIQSHAUSAB JAHAGERDAR,
£8,650 ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC :COQL{E,
R.r'0.i{\iDiRANAGAR,
BLJAPUR.
RESPONDENT
~~ mg...
rags wéz? }§EIxft:--oms 'FiLEa UNDER ARTKJLES 22$ AND 222 or:
1'HEV_»»:§;;ms;T:mT:or~:"--eE____:§zmA, Paxwm TO QUA$H THE wzpuemso
._ 'C2:-:E?: aT;f=€.é.m? PASSED on uwo.3 FELED BY THE RESPQNBENT
Lir»2DE?:_SEC'§'§¥3?~§ 153 05 cm 1:4 R.A,NO.224!Q3, ow "mg was as THE
Lim-_'._,;ur§+;2;é*_~vg$r<;§rs:'[) BASAVANABAGEWAER woe ANNEJQD, AND PASS
AN 'm;éPRo,pRtA3js;TwR:T, ORDER THEREBY REJECTENC3 THE R3, FELED BY
g THE RE$PQ§1€3ENT HERBN BEFQRE me cow? aamw, AND mass?
"MET coma"? aaww "re HEAR um»: "ma Parmomgas, BEFGRE
_ %%;%mss:mg '3';-+5 moses cm: a.mc2.3, ANO GRANT STAY THE FURTHER
mixczeisszsvrss ax: R.A,N{}.224IQ3 0:»: THE FILE 0; THE CML sums
gssfmm easavamaaeawam cm PURSUANCE 0; Arasmzxs.
THEE WEE? PETZYEQN CQMWG ON FQR PRELIMSNARY HEARWG!
T§-{£8 DRY, THE CQGRT MADE THE FOLLQWENG:
PETt"_§}i3N ERE§
3
ORDER
%n ‘me insmnt ease, petitioners are questienéng the
order dated 4?’ September 209? passed on LAJH in
R.A.No.224i2®3 an the fiie of the learned Civi!vVJei;1:ti§;e
(Senier Divisiczm) Baeavan Bagewadi_ Furti1er,__g;iet§ti;§er}f:e:e:’_ _
have sought for a directien, directing the u “~
reject the appiication, i.A.No.3 fi!eB.14by::’tes§’pen_€::§ér:#:
the Cnurt heiew and to heerepee fifi ;§etit§o%fefig,}¥…_;;efere
passexg the ezrdere on
2. ‘ The lega¥ feg§§eeen§et§§ef deceased
responfiefit :§;§.eei,é;1tge§o:e§%e%the Tr%a*¥”‘Cour: has fised ¥.A.H§
on a direcfien to search file
appiéqeiien, ée::;om.;:«ar§yifiTg’ affidavit and vakmeth flied by
flue for; efdeaeed ¥ega} repreeentafive of the
ofr.:-1*’24fi” October 29% and if the said
_ davcfi’me£&§e-e’?e net treeeabie, then, we Horfbie Ceurt
.;:ne=y._¢grent permission fer reeoneizucfien cf the said
dAL{e£:r1ients, namely lnteriecutery Application, Affidavit and
” Qekalath. The eppfieation ied by the legai representative
4
of the respandent Norm befere the Caurt beiow had
came up far consideration before the learned Civ.i:i’~.i£i;i{iig;.<i3
{Senier Division) Bagasavan Bage;si%:ad¥[ " A
R.A.No.224i200'3 on 4*' September»-200'.-{mi$§§g§}_¢f.,.
giving sufficient time, the learned }3<_3-iginéei f€}f?. [I}&t§tifjl'7i"€§FS;'~_
and ethers have net fiied j"sfVV'Vi%v§%i"'fiV¥ing
52' the objections ta itije iegai
representative cf the Na.1A, the
Court has 'rnifiie in the affidavit
accampanying 'bind permitted to
reicanstiésctv as referred in i.A.¥¥i.
Assaiiingiiifiei the order impugned, as
_ referrégdv abové; ~ petitienars feit nacessitatezd is
in;;§*£a_r}t writ petition.
” grciund urged by petiiianers is that
in.___ ‘gilewiiigvviii’i_..t’3i.”iii fiied by flue iegai reprasentative sf
regpondent Nofifi and permétéing
‘ —–.”V’: ‘:f’e®ns1tructi€3n cf the fast dacuments is iiiezgai, arbiirary
Sand against the evidence an regard and an ermneous
5
graunds. Petitianers have not filed their ebgectians to
the above i.A.££i £5; just contrary ta the evider§c:§%'<:f;1
record. In fact, petitioners have filed the objecti:'§5'r3é
Fabruary 2007 and withaut logging mama = A
objectiens, the saéd appiicatiofi-:4' flier? 5j:'
representative af deceased r£§$pgndéfit:_'Na_.VV'¥AA Vbéen
aliawed. The aiieviing Qf the;s;aV§§ –a;5;)Eicafiér2,..pa»§'mi{t§n§
'them ta rebufid irecdfas3'_{'u{it…§i5ge :§e
&:.L§§t_»..:§c{;uments has
resulted in of naturaé
jusfice, Aé§..tf}:éj";:§eti€§oners is put ferth
their sui:§r§d§€3sé;§%§:'.§; '§é ::1ot permissible under
Eaw. order is liable to be set
aside. ..
{:arevf§ iAA pemsaé of the erder Empugnad
200′? and the pfincépai ground urged
by péiitiahéré; what emerges is that, in fact, the said
‘H””:”.v4.4″;;;§}pi§cgfioié’;. :.A.:2z has been filed by the !ega¥
–‘.re;§«;je ¥.§eA§”1’€3tém of the deceased resperedent N{:.1A as
as on 27:” August 2%? and fire matter was
adjeurrsad {ram time ta time at fiwe request of the teamed
ccunsei apgearing for petitioners tn enabfe him it}
objecticms. But’, petitiener have not chesenié’fif§é1’Lj”£h$——.V
ebjeciéens. when the mattssr -35; f’ar7_ V
consideration an 4*” September
passed ever far the firs’: timeg hbeéh VVi:§:%§!!e”d’V:f9r
second time and at paét%i:ie’:§rs 310%”
{hair cwnse! is §:>reser’:t’V:’:r_*:af :5 $3 flied. in
View of mm beiow by
accepting affidavit along with
the _f3%’2nitt%ng 2:3 recanstruct
the mat dogumm marred in mm fixed by we iegai
represgefiiativé £3? déceased rwpandent NCAA. ‘Z’he
sa§d..reas,6:; –g}ven far aiiowéng ‘the application is just and
prep’sr%’3ihc.ié;–.th«é same is passad after gévéng sufficient
_ ‘.qppof{un§%3{ the -counseé representéng the pefitinners. in
severa£ appcrtunétées, pefitioners have mt
V’ …_ ‘chf{fi§sen to fiie the 9b3’ecticns;. Therefcre, ‘share was rm
.’ether aptiefi far the Ceurt baksw but to accept the
7
statements made in the affidavit aiong with the
application and permitted to reconstruct the test
deeemeate as mentiened in the LAN! filed
Regal representative ef the deceased
Hence, ! do net find any error”6r”§E«§eg’a!tty.AtVe’e_ s’eehK\ ‘
cemmitted by the Court Vbelev§?”~-v_§?h–ite ;:ta*.::vet:’t7’g’V
order impugned. What aftef eatvtetulttlperusat
ef the arse: sheet mVa%rz%tairted%.:.e’hy”‘–t.§je”Qeurt betew is
that, the Regaiajf I as earéy as
in the been adjourned frem
time to time at1the”t:%ee’t:ieet”‘.ef the learned cteeneei fer
.1v..«petiti«::§.ri’ers anxd–..th_e_.tearned counse! for deceased
:f’ea’g>endAeht;«~A. it is nething but protracténg the litigation
ahd,’_’4ehev_et’thVe’dodging tactics. If petitioners are ac
‘”~’~.’__”i«:een ma tntereeted, they might have filed the
jjebjeetiohs welt in time and persuaded the Ceurt
Vt ‘be!ew to dispese at the said applieatieh.
8
5. Taking into consideratidn a¥| these factdrs, l
do not find any good grdund or justificatéon to iyytdzffdre
in the §mpugned order passed by the Cddrtd
Hence, the writ petition fiied b}f'”fiététiQ!’ser.; V
be dismissed. Accdrdmgfy, _§t is ££is”rz2isse;d–“–‘.a$’ dexéfid
of merits.
j; Juage BMW