M/S Manipal Home Finance Limited vs Sri H S Srikanth on 16 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Manipal Home Finance Limited vs Sri H S Srikanth on 16 January, 2009
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala

A

W. P.Ncs. / 2008

IN TH E Hi(3rE~£ {‘L’;0{5R’I’ cw i{ARi\i’A’i’AE{A A’ ‘ BAN:<m1_;§§_jRji§ "

DATED TPHS THE 16% my 01:' JANUARVE-Q0é§'~ J}

1:~3.Ia:re*:=~’r::::;’ V A _
THE? H (>94 “BL,f:1 Dr. Jus’I’I<§:'L«: K. V$.~xLA ' % * \ %' "
WRIT PE:?'I'ifI'§{)N rm.

i%3f§TWhi££N: ‘ ‘ ” E

M/’ s.Ma:mpa£ Heme i*’i11a[nce”Lfd.; }
$19.5}?/1~2, 11*-hMai:1, V ‘
Opp. Cluny (}o11vent,. .

Malleswar , _ L. .

Bangaiorefiée _ .

Rep. by its, {}fl§cei*, ” _
‘Sz*i…¥ays1pral{as1:1 J.S11+;:_no:f, ‘ ‘

S[o.R.N.Shanb:Qog,_
Aged ab011{:i4’2y€é’:3,’$v}_ _ .- …PE1TI’f’IONEIR

(By 821′. Kzislma’ M drélfyg , ., ._ ” < . "
M] s. ESSVKAY fissgciaies, M93.)

AN D:

:3’rVl.”}:.’}’;5I”.sf:§t1,SAif”:iV§5C€iii.€?:A1L71″3;!

S] “I i . E};

aged}«.ab£;i1tT’~$4 “j;:rg3:s:3~$,- . V
No.9, 3” Cross, –SI’€€1p1lI’aIa,

4« ,__5neshadr:pure.J:r1,
B.-;1:x).ga£<:2re-¥'?S6£E3A 0520, ..,RE§SPONDEN'}'

'~Tf"':';1'1é"~~sa/11': P&£it3'.(}13_ is flied under Articfics 13:26 &« 227 of the
(7<3_u.st:i*:j:1¥:ioi2. ofi11{i.ia, praying to quash the impzxgined f}I'dCI' passed
' .f}:s_*_g._%"'"'I:ht:':; I435 Adcil. City Civii Judgfi (C3~'I3H~'Z28), Bmigcfiom in

€"}._h.~Nm–.1U389{ 2005 (it..'3(}.f:i.:»?0G7 35 Ibunci in AI111eX–B and etc.

wxmvo' 3125308

This Writ Petition coming on. far 01*£:im*s, tins

made the fsiiowingt –

(}£€D{:2_i§

The pet1¥:i(3ue:’f;:21aintifi'” in (}.’C:5,__N0, }.i}Jj5§39f20′}53i’A’

14¢ Additionai City Civil Judge, Bazigaigrc c:t3é’,’-:sA”*5e£om]gthis com
graying for quashmg the véificr {ii€:1I:Vf_3:{A’i ‘ Hn:Via<:1e in the

above said suit at Annexure 'F'. " _

2. Cou11s¢f;1′..fi¢;agf in pursuance of
Hotzsing loa_§:;; flied a suit against
Ramakfishffia __ .E3ormwer and H.S.S:rika11ih,
Guarantor .f<Ai1['..V_ :_4f3–%:yV':%5,88,Q396j«. in that suit, the

£')efcnda1::'§'Jr), .1 Waa. sé:rt?e{i.. "l'}:1e suit summons Stiliit to Tfiegfimdazlt

wa".s- fetflniézi u11séf£}éd with an r%nd0:<fsement that RPAD was

mat{:1£a.§11:i<i;§i;Wff'.E.:érs;a'i??:er, the cam was postéxi for taking steps to

2.,v£;)e1hz;.§c:;a.§tA N;{,:;i:T’, .’3().(}6.20(}’?’, the 13:13} {jlourt d’is1mssc{i the
._ s§ L:i§. as $g£1ifii,f§f 1′:i”2e £.)cfendaz1t i\¥(;.2 ft:-1* want of steps. The Trial
suit i’m’ issues and cmcuments. ‘!’,’r;c piaizltifi’ flied
t111dc:~r Ekder IX Rule 4 of {EPC to mcai} the order

3€).(}6.2(}0″F. The ‘pe¥jti0n€r[pLaj11¥iff filed another

./,,.. ~.__é:j@£iCati021 111}ti¥.er 5l of CFC? stating that since the

W, P. No. 189%/2{}O8

as against fhtt iitifendaxit N 0.12. ‘I’he jmptlgned onicr 1t3}€~§C’ti:r:i.g.’fl1;e

application filed hy the plaintiff under Order IX R1113’;-4

net Sl’1Sf£3iI1E1§}1t3 in the eye of law. _

6. Keeping in View the naiurf: of tibia’; S{)r1g}}t,

Ckauri; couf,It:i have diltctcd the ‘it; Il_:0’i}L(.f:f; V

sezvice insteaci of dismissing ;_.the S111:t~~!-?¥S: “agé§:m$t §’j.}éien.gi.33it No.2.

7*’. In thc::_ allowed and the
ifllpllgllfifj. {3g*§:i.§_:1v’V ;>I1 “£}i1e .-a.pp}ica£:30n filed
under ilvrdégj IP51. __i3 Quashfid. (,3031sequz:11t]y, the
agkpiicaljoil , EX Ruiz: 4 of {3:P'(‘f, by the

petitionexf is ‘aflov§9€.d and tbs: Order dateé {j)3,(}€§.i2{){)’?’,

idisifiissiiig ffit: emit as agéiitxst the Defbndailt No.3, is set aside.

Thgé * ;g5″_:.di:*cc:ted to afieréi an opportunity to the

L»””~V”pefifi01ic1’f take notice to the rc:$p0r;dent]l)e;Fen,dant.

~ _f:.P=i.{)§i2, to take: {int summscms to the §3I’£}(1’t2SS Scrvéd first if the suit

3;1i::§i:nQn’:S”_is not served by way of su’bs1:it11t<:d seryxce.

Sd/-

Judge

“m1v°”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *