IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD BEFORE C.R.P.N0. 1oséT'/.2éTD'§ BETWEEN: 1. R.Chandrashekar:f~._ . « S/o.Late R. Gangadarappa; Aged: 61 years, " . g V Partner ofE'ir__m I _ M/s. R.Pani1§gpat--.hy€. " Indushreea 1N.i.1-aya:,--.e_22_/ 1"1'5_6»;,'.3, Be1Iary'_Ro:_r§n:i_, Hos_p'eeT_e,e_ Dist:T..Be11.ary"L::;_ ~ = 2. R. 1xaa1.1ikarj:fma T S/0.'-Late R, G._anga_d'at'e'appa Aged 57 Tyeafs_,': " Pa.r_tner"cfVF'i.r:n Mg:/s.eR.Parf1'13_.61thy, »TKunja';"1'3'e11ary Road, , <.229d".Wafd, Hospet, D'ist':v,_f3eI'1.arjg. T 3. R; Sa_ti'sh.' S"'/o.<.R.*Chandrashekar Ages;i:":.33 years, AA .Indu'shree Nilay, 22/1156-2, ,Be?_1ary Road, Hospet, Dist: Bellary. -.4". R. Santhosh S/0. R. Chandrashekar Aged: 33 years, Indushree Nfilay, 22/1156~2, é DATED THIS THE 17?" DAY OF FEBRUARY,vV.2.Q"1.Q THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. Bellary Road, Hospet, Dist: Bellary. Petitioners. (By Sri.P.H.Ramalingam, C.H.Srinivas and Sud'3:_1_e'ar, Advocates.) ~ AND: 1. Smt. R.Ma1Iamma W/o. Late R. Parnpapathy Aged: 70 years, Partner of Firm M/s. R.Pampapathy Rajapura Nilaya, Bellary Road, Hospet, Dist: Bellary. 2. R. Sharanabasavedshdvdvafadd . _ S/0. Late R.a Pam.p"a"paDth'y,."'s.__ ' Aged: 51 ' _ Partnerorf Fijfnj ~. 2 M/s. R5. Pa'11115a'pat'hfy,."=-: Rajapura " Be1i'ai9y"Ro,ad,'7fHo_spVe't, D Dist: seI1ar.;,»._@' ' - 3. R. Prakash D . S/0.. Late R.' Pam-papathy AgedD':* 49 yearVs_?____V . P«a'rt»--i1Ier'd'of Firm » _"M/s_._v'R;e.Pampapathy, Rajapa,1raf~Ni.iaya, = AB«e'Ilar3?.'fRo=ad, Hospet, D_ist:.~Bei~lary. " A The »M'an ager, V. ., ' Canara Bank, '' 'uHo'spet. 'E ~ Respondents. e T '"(.By___Sri.V.M.Sheelvanth, J.Basavaraj and Vishwanath "Badiger, Advocates, for R.1 to R3.) i *9. This CR? is filed U/S. 115 of the CPC, against the order dated 12/8/2009, in O.S.No.32/2009 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) 82; JMFC, Hospet, rejecting the application (IA--3) filed U/S_.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. This petition coming on for preliminary<'h.eaiiin"gA this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
This petition is filed §t’g=3:ln’sfti~e.lt}te”‘l:o.rde_r
dated 12/8/2009 passed tho.sfN.e)3.2/zzpoopghqhli theft
file of the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr_.:D-n_.)-..and..J«–M:li’C,fi?Hospet.
During the pendencly’«-fiofi the parties
herein were involved i.n”th:e Vcon_teI.npat”xproceedings in
CCC c_ontempt proceedings was
disposedA”o_f” A copy of the order is
made .1a–v.ailahieo tovvthils Court. The observations made
para olfethe order would indicate that the
llstetftled their dispute with regard to the
manner or’ continuing of the business. In that View
gI*~lo.rt?.’ii:1e Division Bench of this Court has
i.ndi’c.a_t=ed that the original suit hearing No.32/2009
‘i.t.seclf is deemed to have been dismissed as withdrawn
and the revision petition filed is also deemed to have
been Withdrawn. In that View in normal circumstance
5
3;
a memo was required to be filed by the learned
counsel for the petitioners to withdraw the petition.
Since that has not been done, the observatiéons”iiofithe
Hon’ble Division Bench is noticed and
stands disposed of in the said:.te’1’rns. efrs
costs.