IN THE HIGH CGURT OF KARH.ATA.KA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DHARWAD 5
fiated this {he 17th day of December, ~
BEFORE ‘ ” ‘ ‘
THE I-IOIWBLE am. .3113;-*ri'(:E’ 21, ‘
Writ Petition “No. 31545 of’2Q’G3*’ (G:x&g§§.;><:) «. "
Between: ' u '
Runirappa
S] 0 kappa Mirakhtn'
Aged 60 years
R] at Mutavad Village
Tq.Saz.u1datti _ . _ _
13ist.13e:gauz:o? 4' "~—~'mPefitio1:ier
(By Wazltxnuri, Advocate)
And: ' ' V ' V '
2 ; 'Sm mapga
" 3;; I?_a1<irapp::..Mntawad @ Sogaiaci
A?g¢d 14:'3_years
. "VW/'cr -Saxijgappa Baihvad
yeam
am 1"/at Wakkuncl Village
" 'f'q. Bajlhongal _
Dist. Bclgaum Rcspandcnts
This Writ Petition is filed under Axficics 2126 and 227 {If
T " C-OI1$tifl3ti{)Il of India, praying to 31:1": aside the order dated
2–12~2€)08 passed by the Court of the Civii Judge {Sr.[}n.),
Saunclaitti 01:: {A No.13 {Axmexure-=A) in OS and
dismiss the same. "__
This Writ Petition coming on for
day, the Court maée the foiiowing: " ' M . T
.._;e.»,e.._…….eDIB
The petitiotaer has 3:12 fiefihgon the order
passed by the §…V_;'\,:n'11ex11re–}\ H allowing the
application for amenci1g;efi1t.VQfh_t_}1e ;
2. suit for the relief of
D0ss¢S$3§1:i’* is his specific case that he
has ei;gor:gx§r§:§1v.”»/;.:.5_{;,;;;;.;7FefiRs_.moo/~ hem the defendant and he
has and, therefore, he is entitled to
get; ‘back pesse_eSéion Vfiom the defendafit. The defendant has
” =;s9’3_1’itten statement conienciihg that the amount
R$.1,000/- but it is Rs.2,G90/~. Issues are
evidence is over. At the stage of cross–
A exafiljfiefion of defendant Noe}, the plaintiff filed the present
‘eaxhfgndment application to incorporate in place of Rs. 1,000] ~,
U __§Rs.2,000/– and to correct the page tmmbers. The said
appiication was oppesed as being filed 13 years after the filing
of the suit and afier the commencemeni of the e.’-..r_i;§:jie;1t1’BVy”the b T
before this Court.
3. The amendment soagfiifiiwae Ceeieet {he defect of
Rs.1,000/’ by s1;bstiati;§fi.fig In it is the
de:fez:Lda:::1t’s case that not R’s.1,000/«
and, therefore’; ‘afiféflfiéifit grievance for the
said is paragraph numbers
which :i::;”71io- ngiité’ :52″ the defendant. The suit
was firior of the CPC and, therefore, the
proviso to is not applicable. in that View of
V. fine efiie:..passed is legal and valid and do not call
any Accoxdingiy, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-»
Judge
I