w P No.217§_}jgQO7.
..1_
EN THE HIGH coum op KARNATAKA AT _
DATED THIS THE 31$? DAY OF_MIs§fif~~20€i8 '
THE H()N'BLE MR. J:.rsT1C§;«.A;'s.PAC}:-}+uitéURE; V
WRIT PETITION No;2.i75/2o07%.:LG:;rx--C;vc)
BETWEEN
PEEKA NAIAK
s/0 SAMYA NAIK '
AGEIDABOUT4-QYRS V
R/AT KAALEVE13;§.1~:A':fr:A _ "
VIL1AGE,C}IALLi-KEVRE TQ__ '
cH1TRADURG:s'Q1sT'«-- » PETITIONER
{BY SVRIJ'. ':«.4L.'jir;M 'E;::%:.fi~i.A:"1\e;:iRTHi?;'ADV. )
1 RAMA ANAYAKA'; "
, .,s/0 SAMYAVNAIK
AGE MAJOR" ____
RACARAJA NAYAKA
' _ G R'AM19:.NAIKA @ SAAJAN
' AvG':3_MA§?OR
Bern ARE .EfE$IBENTS OF
CHIKKAJOGIHALLI TANDA
. ' KUDLiGI_ TQ BELLARY DIST
" V' P31533126
' BHIMA NAIK
S] O SGMLA NAIK
AGE MAJOR
R/O. ULIANAHALLE VILLAGE
KUDLIGI TQ BELLARY DIST RESPONDENTS
{BY SR1 J.M. ANIL KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 85 2)
W P No.2 175/2007.
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION ES FILED UNDER AR’rICL5i:’:>§_2°;{oF
THE CONSTITUTION ow INDIA PRAHNG TO QUAS_§”THE..QEDER
3’1″. 23.1.2007 IN es 83/98 BY THE CIVIL .m’sc}_12:.:”[..:”tR;»:.§fr~:1″
KUDLEGI, VIDE ANX-E, ORDER ON IMIQ. 123;
THIS WRIT PETFFION comes; on
DAY, THE COURT MADE THEs’FQLLOVW{NG:
This petition the orders on
I.A.Nos.12 and V 13 of the
petitioner readwith Section
151 the plaint and also
reopening the -t
2. ,T1_1e reievant’fof”‘tne purpose of this petition
a;’e’as u1viduer:;p_.p
the suit seeking declaration that
_p1aintfifl’s owners of the suit schedule land and
ef’. permanent injunction restra1mn’ ‘ g the
A’ from trespassing and interferring with the
~ p _ possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
respondent appeared, flied the written statement and
:3; \
W P No.2 175 [ 2007.
-4-
filed, even Without giving the date Wheia’.
dispossessed Wouid itself give an he ‘K
not at all diligent in seeking ‘
application seeking reopening of thocase of L.
was on the basis of the amoviaoiiftnent so”a.g}:1tv’fo1;;’f§When the
pefitioner is not enfiizisd iihere is no
question of Trial Court has
taken into tizroiéappfic/afion is filed
only to ii’1oV’:»§pfoceedi11gs and further
that the amendment. There
is show that the petitioner was
diligent in} shiendment of the piaint. In View of
oiifcunisfaiioes, I do not find any merit in this
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed
einéis djssiissed accordingly.
§:3!s’*s
JL
w.p. No.2175/2007
ASPJ: V l
10.06.2008 ‘J
onnaa on BEING spoxxn NH”,
The learned counsel for the petitioner éfiunior
counsel} had argued the matter and lateruafter that
dictation, the learned senior oounselihfor the
petitioner submits that the iriai Court 055 wrong in
rejecting the application and that the multiplicity
of the proceedinds_cdnld he atoided it the amendment
is grantedg”Eheitwiishsfielevantb_to note that this
submission fies oensidered while dictating the Order
and as the,pétitronerreag.fiot diligent in filing the
applicatioal andx’didl=not’ even mention the date or
month} or. year_ of ldispossession from the suit
;1_fireperty;h ih* his application for amendment and as
the applieation was filed subsequent to the closure
at” of evidenoegithe provisions of Order 6 Ruie 17 C?C
z”*¢require the petitioner to prove that he was diligent
h<.allualbng. As there was no material on this aspect
V"-L§f the matter, the petition has been rejected. In
ih*._ the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to
modify the Order already dictated. The request of
54
the learned counsel fer the petitioner for review ofh'””‘
modification is rejected.
4 a
+..-.¢
K3m*