High Court Karnataka High Court

Mohd. Zahiruddin S/O Mohd. … vs Asif Hashmi S/O Ameer Ali on 9 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mohd. Zahiruddin S/O Mohd. … vs Asif Hashmi S/O Ameer Ali on 9 April, 2009
Author: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HEGH CGURT OF' KARNATAKA
Cii?CUf"¥' BENCH AT GU LBARGA

DATED THIS THE 09:11 DAY OF APRZL 2 (§iG€§  A' 

BEFDRE

'THE H{)N'I~3LE MR.Jz;s'rI<::-;i RAVE 

WRIT PETITION No.s1_331i'2§0--9 :'GM;.€:Pg} " V

EETWEEI-N:

Age: 42 years, 0ccp.Agr3Ii;-_  _ I
R/0 Shivapur Lane'1'0w'n,  .   
Humnabad, Dist _   _   'Petitianer

Mohd. Zaizzixucidizi 3/o Mghd. .~:3:1a;§i;dV£iiz;%

(33; 55;' -1,i§2aq$at--   Adv)

M23. _

 V'  _ L §';§fa;"s=%hmi 5/C?"'2*13:33€€:I' 33.1.17,

aw»  I 

' , _ Age 41) years, 0cCp.Agri<:u.1ture
' ago" -.:;s»1;:;1:::;a11'a-~ Kufrated,
"-Tflunzziezbafi; V Efiist. Bidar.
"'Moh_d.'T:~1quiuddia Qmzaishi
sjo Z-ainudrizln Quraishi,
_ T Age*¢:'--»2 years,
V Qccp. Agriculture ii'/0 Quraishi Q3111,

" -._E7{i;"n1na¥:)a::i Dist. Bié:-31'. ... Respondents

This WP, is {Bad unéer Articies 226 and 227 of the
Cotxgtimtion of indie praying to set aside the order dated
26.3.2089 passed by the Adcil. Civil Judge (JIx[):1,) at

B»)

Humxmbaci Vida AImexure–F in LA mg U/0 ;..’}é*x};}e1″%j’:T:§’«;;f
CPCir10S 510.412/99. %

Thig WP. Cfimilig 01:1 for pI33’liin’i:1a;y’_¢Ahe_;:fi*§i§:1v:g tvl::1i$:V«’f}z§§;7, b

the Court maéfi the foIlowing:~ ‘
gmmfi

Pctitisner seeks-fgr u§’3€”::_’€:i01′;’:>:1’i’i”‘tcs”‘{::1uash thffi
Carder data} :26.3.”é(i{§§: ” iA.§\¥o.iX in
O.S.N0.412/19′-3;§v–.Qn ..5VcVi’-ax.’ Qiiivu Judge (Juan)
3:. amps A’

” for thc petitioner submits
that the §.A }{1:%éA%:§é3::%§..’L’x=47r0ng}y ailoweci and thereforé, the

imfigxégficti GE’$€”f~~i$__m§’i’E333l€Z ta be irzztsrfered with. He submiis

» jthat “cf ailawing 01′ the IAJX seeking amendment. to

_.flp1’t:~se11t appiicatian for impleading dees not

stiivixrué fG§”}l:3OI1$i(1€f&ti0fl.

53′. 0:: hearing the le:am.eé ccunsei for the

“‘,_p’e£%’iioner, I am of $316: View tiiai thaw is no error committed

” the {rig} {lotxri in pafising the ilnpugned order. The

cantanfion ef the 1€3I’I}€d 00111136} for the petitioner that sincre

‘£9

F
[K

/__..w..

the azneadment alapiication filed by the p1ainfifi?3’~.;§1%fif;:Qsmg

certaixl amenefimsnts was rfijected, the present i_21p}:$liC[éti€$17:–_f0r

impleadmsm fxiezi unsier erder 1; MI3f;1_ie

been aflowed by the court below, ;}_:-3′ Tu-£1si1staiiiai3’i-:§’;§.,._ “i”:1’E;;e1′<=: "

cannct. be a nexus b€§V6€:fi'x;iv:
and an application for ciifiemnt and
independent by then;;g:7é§}x§€$:.T {v.’re_as0n’$ 5;-sA:s to why the
propased appifitant defendani No.2

in the ‘In itievé ti’13: <:§'rcvu.r"s::a;sta:1ces invalved, the
and proper party for that
adjuxiicétssri ofVV:};'e;gmi:t–. % faalxi.

' 'V Fer thé' reascns, the writ petition being bereft

A ' , gf :31e 1'its .i§{_fi2§mis,s::c},.

Sd/~
JUDGE

T 22%:/«