High Court Karnataka High Court

Ragavendra Mahabaleshwar Shetty vs Sri Ravindra Narayan Shirali on 21 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Ragavendra Mahabaleshwar Shetty vs Sri Ravindra Narayan Shirali on 21 April, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
BETWEEN:

1.

3.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA'  1' =7  "' 

CERCUIT BENCH AT DgARwA.D  V' C .  .

DATED Tfiis THE mat DAY oF..A;évRi'2,;:E).Q9- 4'    7

BEFQRB: _ V V V
THE HORBLE MR.JUS*zé§A"~AD.I H9091, TALUK UDUPI.
.V - -_  ~~ ...RESPONDEN'I'S
(BY SR1. RAVE <3. SABHAHIT, ADV. FOR R-1 5 TO 9.

 , A sR1.»2'#=,:v.VPATrL Ro'R~RUrsN'7;:;..,,o:z:2V:.-m AT ANX-A DATED 29.5.2007 PASSED BY

CML JU13c.2;::($R.DN; HGNNAWAR IN CLS.NO.169/2001 AND
COh'iSEQUEN}'LY ALLOW I.A.NO.II FILE!) BY THE PETXTONERS

 UNDEF? ORDER 1 RULE 10 R'/W SECTION 151 OF CFC ANS ETC.

v "  AA  THIS PETITION COMENG ON FGFE PRELIMINARY HEARING
 1:9 fB*'{}ROUP, THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:



:3:
ORDER

The petitionew make an application under’

Rule 10 of the Code of Civii ?ro-cedure to be .

defendants 9 to 11 in the suit. T13; said .1suitj3gfii§deVfo§~” “~

declaration and also for partition. ‘I’h,_e
has rejected the said applicatioi).–.,_ As 1

petition is filed. —

2. When the matfier Weaé “before on

13/02[-fieie obeefiiee thus:

vv “”i’_ V appearing for the
Pfifitififlélfi that the petitioners are
égwflling for ieasmeaable settlement in the matter

‘ aledwééigfiieeable to purchase the suit
» for the reepondents by paying the
His submission is placed on

.. Nofiee re~sett1ement. The petitioners are

x * ._ pennitted to take out notice on the learned

counsel appearing for the respondents before the
trial court in additional to take out nofice
through the process of court.

W2

:4:

List immediately afier service of notice.”

When the matter was listed before the Court on

2009, the learned counsel appearing for the .

submitted that the would make an .efl’oxt u u

The matter is listed today. The 1ea:§m:1:’¢o~an§e1

the petitioners are not W1’lI1’ngfQ “s.ettie the

3. I have perused ofdver péissed by

the learned trial Judge. ‘

4. Judge has found
that the pefifnners fiat necessary parties to
the .:<_2.«uit_of the impugned order,

I am 51" not warran: interfezwmoe.

No mei-"§__:. If the pdifianms have any right,

"it filing a separate suit.

– Siifi
Ind ‘e

15.35;