Mohammed Shariff vs S Chokkalingam on 5 June, 2009

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATE}? THIS THE 05"' DAY OF JUNE 2009

BEFORE

WRIT PE'I'1'I'ION NO:14170--141'Z-1'i'2--0O9"fé§2{§'{fiPfi}}   Ak

_B;_______EI'W@ENI-

1

MOHAMMED 

AGED'¢8~-YEARS: " , ~

S /OILATE M:'aLL11&,:  .

R/ 0.KALLA;>UR.AL%V£1.mG:£~;,
KASABAI-{DBL-I, E{AD{§RTAL{}I{
CHI_CKMAGAL.U1?. BISTRICF

AL   @%MH1j.2:*§"A:2,

'AGEZD 4¢6.YEARS

%  I.;;'¥I'°E"2:I{:%£,L3;I< sag
' - R Q. K}';I_2§A5{PURA VILLAGE,

KASABA_ HOBLZ, KADUR TALUK
CHEQKMAGALUR DIS'I'RIC'I'

" SATTAR SAB @ ABDUL SATTAR,

 %AGE:D 45 YEARS

V' 353/ QLATE MALLIK SAB

 A _..'RfO.KALLAPURA VILLAGE,

KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT

0*-~

THE I-1oN*BL13: MRJUSTICE H.N.NAGAM0Hsi-6    '

:fs'I%':_*~':Ir_;_:'r z W  y V
   >     PETITIONERS

(BY SR: PZATEE, IADV. ,)

AND»

s »,£§HOKKALD}I.§AM fl

 _ 'WC)Fi{;IN€{'ATj.M/S.FREE WORLQ

T' .HQUsB'_ERMANk:NT R/O.NO.Q96/3,
GANESHCOLONY,

 K.H.'EeQAD, CHENNAI - 23

.% ":mw.R/0.MALLEsHwARA KASABA,
   i<:AI{:UR TALUK, .
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICE'

" "TAHASILBAR

KADUR TALUK
KABUR 1
CHICKMAGALUR SIST.

O\U\;\,-'



3 SHIRESTHEDAR
TALUK OFFICE KADEIR
CHICKMAGALUR DIST. 

 RESPONQENTS

THIS WRFI' PETFPION FILED UNIJER  
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA .?'§¥E.éL§'I1$.a'(§{"   
SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED QN" 24.3;'20Q9T'<3N: I~.'.A'S-  x
13 AND 14 IN OS No.9/2006 V§DI:i_'_'fiNX~.(}'  :;_I';.":]jT{]?.I 
PETITION, IN :30 FAR AS A'I\?AgDING "COS*1;' $'fH'E2 

PEFFPIQNERS.

THIS? %%%% %VTWzé%r%r COMING ON FOR
FRELIMIN2&RY_HiZW{RiNGv.TI$iS.. DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWEIG-:v%~  %  A 

2   ..... .. 

 ~.  V' ;i%£3§1:)onde1}t is the plaintiff, petitioners amd

 mher  are the ciefendants before the trial Court.

 VI1'§;jt'1fisL---Qrdér for canvenjence, the parties are referred to

 _:;%iei$"'§iatus before the: trial Court.

"2. Plaintiff' filed O.S.No.9/2006 against. the

 iiéfendants for ciecree of specific perfomnanca Gf an

0'*V~**



agreement of sale. Plajntifi' examined himself as: 

Defendants 1 ix) 4 cross-»examiI1ed PW-I. Defeaéidajiili  M

has not cmsswexaxninsd PW-1. Wh.'efi '1}:1e_  'mVis'~.i%,sei';'-~é

down for the evidence on the 31:16 <:'if__tl1€;l. def§{§;;:r;1é:11i=s'V 

filad LA. Nos.13 & 14 to re0pei1l..V::i:i*;e (:Vz.1S<:_V_013 of V

plaintiffs and to recall   Under
the ixnpugned order, the; both the

applications su':3§e'{:'§;.l:l1'to §;<l"1e=iL fiéfé'fidé1fxts.fiiepositing costs.

The ~.:c'_f1v6fe_::).l'cvtViV§'§.'11Vf1ts 1 to 5 in this writ
petition is ;féspect_. cost by the trial Court.

3?.' ;' " _AdII3;Vitts3§iI3?', ""i'~'*\2E;'---1 is residing outside the

 'c0fir2tr}}.   the instance of the defendants, PW»-I is

 they are liable to pay the costs of the

 w~i:~ms§. fine 'lrial Court keeping in mind that PW~1 is

 oiitsidfi the csunfiy imposed cost of Rs.1(},{)OO/-

HV  ml.  ilefendants and the same is reasonablti. I find no

 '  'jéféiifiabie graund to interfere with the same. Accsrdingly,

C/7Lv\/V



the writ petition is hareby dismissed Without I'€'.f€I'f3I1C6 to

the respondents.

9%?”

Iflaggt . ‘V : \_ .¥ .1;

dh”‘