High Court Karnataka High Court

Ramaiah vs Smt Gangamma on 22 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Ramaiah vs Smt Gangamma on 22 April, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil


IN THE HIGH Comm’ 017?’ KARNATAKA AT BA%1x:%{35.i:5§ié;*é§

DATED THIS THE 22nd my 0}? APRI£ ;’i§0G§f’~ V’ % ” 1 V

BEFORE

THE HQEWBLE MR.

WRIT PETITION””1§ ?”O..<§§_)f§I 1 /%2o%Qg~gQM–cPc)

BETWEEN

S / o.La:e+"v'3c:faI'ag'iA1av.é:j.a1<;, A "

Aged about. 45 §;ez;_ar:»3%, –

Residirig a{4_Ku1ii11rE:pa1jgf3;;T'–. n ' " _.

Hamlet Gf._Kathr'igai:%;2,,,. '

Huthfidurga. Fiobii, A . V

aiuk; . _ V' V I .. .PETITIONER

{§%:;g*A;;§i;<3.R.Lakshmipa:hy Raddy, Adv.)

XANDW

g 1.

W/o;vI..€~1te Muniswamaiah,

V’ V’ x AA Aged about 62 years,

‘ Véénkatesha,

S / 0.La{e Mmfiswamaiah,
Aged about 45 years,

Both are residing at
Kulumepalaya,
Kuiimepaiya,

Hamlet. of Kathrigatta,

” 13y.t11sx’Said”Order application I.A.N0. 17 filed by

filfldfir Grder 18 Rule 17 of the Code 51′

;’-».evid&:ic§’3- by producing a. genealsgtical tree of the

T’%’%’p1a::};:m’s’ family is rejected by the ma; Court.

V’ for the parties submitted thai: the matter is already

Huthlfidurga Habii, <
Kunigal Taluk. . . .RESF'§}'NI).E_:?3"f§§» : ' ; 4'

(By Sri.B.N.Shiva1ma, Ad§z.Vf<')z* R1 &; 1§§.+¢§' f

This writ petition is fiiad und.e1"' Axtisies» .226 _

227 of the Constitution of I11ci'1'a_Mwitii a prayc:t'~-t{§"q1ia.sh '
11116 Grder dated '29.O5.2GO8;"V«.1'I1aVcie o.i1 1.'A.Np.17 in
O.S.No.318/98 on f1ieA..VUf–.(;3JV'{;.Jr.}3n.)"—and JMFC
Kunigai the AImexure.__ 'B' .ct1I_1seqL_2ent1y allow the
I.A.No.1"7.

This utvéxif for preliminary
hearing in _’f:?’ . this d.ay,V ‘thff Court made the
foilowing: _

“””

érdéfi dateé%;4;:9*I{:’«§§’g? 2008 passed by the Triai

Court _in ‘O.-.SV.’Nc3,;3 is challesnged in this writ

to recall D.W.£ for leading fzuther

At $133 time of hearing, leamed counsei appeazing

posted. for judwlant afier hearirzg the arguments by the

U

Trial Court. At this stage, it is not agyrapriate to g) into

the qusstiorz raised by the petitioner in

petition. I do not also see any c0mpe1Ii11g:—-re;§*s€ii’:% *

interfcire with the impugned 01’d$r»A~iI1__ex@?CiS’é'<§;f tii:: _wri.*;'; V'

jurisdiction as no error 0fjurisdi'¢f§(éf1'Or é':"r_§§r.

0:11 1:313 face: of the recoj'(i._is ;_7i1a;:i:eL"<–xj_1;1:

Hewevef 4ift:f33§:'t:i§§}.Vg" fiie ":%_',éf:Z"i1;iOI1(.'.'.I' to urge
necessary of the suit gees
an appeal, this writ
petition}: 5 " V. '

Iudgé