High Court Karnataka High Court

Nirmalamma vs Basawaraj on 19 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Nirmalamma vs Basawaraj on 19 March, 2008
Author: H.G.Ramesh
ll 'PI-ll HIGH COURT OF KARIATAKA AT IAHGALQRI

mmn mm  L9" 94;: 9:  

I'I\I.lllI. 'I.ll|IOnI_l! 'D _!IIflIIII.n'III. I.I n   
IIIII IIIIII ZIIII l\nInlIJII'lI\iII IInIIol\llB:Jva.€Nl_CIEI '

urntrn nmmvntnlr no (1111: tnnnrr .r'ru.i'nz_.n;ér'\r~-,n, V .
. . .

WRMALAMMA

w/0 SOMSHEKHAR

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS  

R/A'I' HABALA, SEDAN! 'I*Q..";-- _ , .   

GULBARGA DIST-535 222.'        PETITIONER

(BY KUMARI NALENA K..*Abv{'Fi)R',.'j'L.._ '% ..
sm s.:<.s:13.\:«;;4-.'rA Rmnnm  A V  VA 

AND:

BASAWARM. _ 

s/o DHULAPP:"u"._-V  ,  

AGED Aaosfi' 35 YEARS  

R/AT HABALA, SEDRMTQ  

GULBARGRDKST --*5_s5222   RESPONDENT

ass; sR1%MAmu§m'H at Cl-IIDALL1, ADV.
 mg sR1vEn:me.s.z4 B PATIL.)

 '  *  $513  PETFPION IS mun UNDER ARTICLES 225 &
":a_27._pF'vTi_-1.1; <*','oNsrrrUT1oN op' INDIA PRAYING 'l'O QUASH

mug' npnlfab' n-"h 1 0 onn. DAQ.¢!llg'l"\ nu IA U' vtnw Aunmvnnn' A
III  \uII\lgi'l-J1.'  I I I-IQIGI\C\J' I IIIJIJIJLI \III III V I'-IIJIJ IlIVl'IJ4'\\ll\lJ II

 %  IN o.s,.NQ.1%a3/2002. BY THE crvu. JUDGE (SR.DN.), smnm
A  _ A.ND ETC...

  THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

   _'V_I-EEEARING IN "B" GROUP, THIS DAY, THE coum' MADE THE

FOLLOWING:



ORDER

“i”hi’ ‘*’t pofition by defofidant No.3 i’ r’f””**”‘*”‘

against an interlocutory order dated *

(Annexure-A) passpd by the man oomft d to

the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),

9.5 mm hufim gamma

J.|.|\.l\A II.’ ._§a’Ia:f| hI\I\ufflI’.n_I-DID .,
I’

‘nor written statement:-‘ix; tho. s1;ii.1’r};i!1” 6,S.No.’ 16:31′ 2662.

‘ .;.,..,………ng for

to
r
E
E
3’
§.

If
9
E’
,2 _ .

5

ii.

3

3

3.

the fig    order at
  filed in support of

the .. ' 5

3. _ . It is suit is for partition of the suit

“””

“dig: to state that the aforesaid

apfi£catjoii;I.A.No.5 was filed by the petitioner on

As could from the impugned

26”! August 2003. Having regard to

order, tfie “uit S”Lifi’u”i’i'”‘iS ‘\v”s &n’:'”i”‘1fv.’5″u on 1:11

i
ii

I-{rut-unsi-

I5′!

I-E-«II
cfacts

E

M L /
‘V

W.P. N0.2126/2007

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid

application and in the lifit of the judgment hot?’-

-II-\-una f’ III!’ 41-: ‘I.”‘ Am 1- H’ V

I-1′-‘1-I ‘J15 ‘£11151′-I’: \.I\’l-all. L

DI

VD: IIIIIE

aoos so 2441), the trial court o1_1gl11_’._ to tuaveteitgeeéptgatet * he

the cause shown for the delaiy 1-:gft1Id:’ pm 1′ ‘

petitioner, to file her in

5. In the result, 1 uterouemmmcrz

(1) the order date_d tt1.t2;2oo5tt
.V suit in

Of-3.510, ‘tea/t20_02 ‘-is aeteasiee;
(ngttneetpeegmere this A to me her
butvvtstrictly within the
to; the trial court.’ if the
stzfit-enotstat.emc:1t has been flied,
me ti’ia.l is fiirected to take it 6.”:

fnnixrd
, I \,nl”\I\-M5… um

_ of.