Rashmi W/O Gourishankar Magavi vs Suvarna W/O Vithoba @ Vithal … on 21 August, 2009

W.P.No.3119'? of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 

cmcurr BENCH AT DHARWAD *  ~ 

DATED THIS THE 2187' DAY OF AUGUST     

BEFORE:-<  

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1($E_ :1"§A._.V'A'S'.BC5."iV'_'--._¢A5&A1'IN'.I&"  

WRIT PETITION No.3'l..ei9.7/2608 MM  V

BETWEEN:

Rashmi, ..
W/0 Gourishankar Maga*.ri,f V
Age: 45 years,    
Occ: I3usir1e_SL3_,  ~ '

R/0: Haverii,  V     

Tq 85 Dist. Ha_ver:._,_ V   "   ...PETITIONER

(By S1*i:'-.__ F.x*.15¢1ti1,7Ac:::¢ecé;£e) e 7

AND:

_ V I . Siivairia a,

. W./'0 ifviith-Qba @ Vifhai Koparde,
. :'Ae_ge: _v3t3.%yeér$, Occ: Household,
.__ " 12/ 0 S'hiTVaIinVg.~ Nagar,

r ' Havfiri,' 'Di. Haveri.

L' 2. Se£1:3fcd'$h,.'
 AA /0 Wthoba @ Vithal Koparde,

Age: 18 years, Occ: Nil,

 R,/cs Shivaiing Nagar,

"§Tq: Haveri, Dt. Haveri.

$

at



W.P.No.31197 of 2008

3. Bharati,
D / o Vithoba @ Vithal Koparde,
Age: 13 years, Occ: Student,
R / o Shivaling Nagar,
Tq: I-Iaveri, Dt. Haveri.

4. Branch Manager,   
National Insurance Company;
I-Iaveri,

Divisional Manager, 

National Insurance Cornpany~,.y
Shanbhag Complex, C"  
Opp: Glass House, Hubli.,<'"" =  

5. Karnataka State Financial   
Corporation,.Banga1oreg. '
Utility Building;-. 1 
6. Managing.VD'i--re_otor;_V   
Karnataka }r3tat'e§ "P-'in'an'cial _  V
Corporation",Bangalore.   r ...RESPONDEN'I'S

(By Sri. Mallil contends that
the Court belowcwas  {fie rejection of
the    that there is no
 counsel would place
reliance on between the petitioner and

the KSFCi:V«_Bevth'at"' inay. Even if the agreement

 subsi_%sts,<the  is_a contract between the petitioner

    and if there are any violation of the

tern*i'si'oxf' s%;ich'y::agreement and, due to such violation, if

--the petitioner suffers any financial ioss, it is always

 "'q.:0p"env}i0 the petitioner to initiate proper action as they

  to the contract. In the nature of proceedings at

J

*3



W.P.No.31I97 of 2008

present, it is not appropriate to impiead KSFC,  the

present claim petition since the same beir1g:"'c"Iairn

petition it would be prejudiciai to the interest'e.oVfx 

claimant since contractual iss-Lie"s"«bpetweenf'the"~eo--"1

respondents would have to be thu'1*as'he.d o1..1't_-5 A'I'he-rei?or'e."'

to the said extent, insofatr’ the is
concerned; without expressing” regard
to the claim of the petitioner’ the KSFC if
it subsists, asizithei,o_fTfI.iA.No.I, I am of
the View thet by the Court

below so “dist V

In Vié’W of the the petition being devoid. of

rnerit accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

saf-

EEEQGE