Loading...

S Vinay Gundi vs Smt Anita W/O Mg Bakkesh on 15 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
S Vinay Gundi vs Smt Anita W/O Mg Bakkesh on 15 December, 2010
Author: N.Kumar And Nagaraj
BETWEEN:  

IP$'IT{EE EIICEEI (3()[Jf?T'(3E' P{1XP3DE@{I)k}{Z\ £¥I'E3}X?J(31%1,()}?f§

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DEc1+:MBER,.é.2Oi1of"L:'--_.

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1cE"   

AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUs'151VC~£«:V_ARAL1V  

RPNO. 13Q_(_)Q._E2'<._.
OSA NO.   O * 
A/W'f'' :  
M1sc.:;vL_ 6.984/,201'o«&__j2;_z_g2_0' 9

1. s V1N.AY"GUN'L3_L.    =
5,0 G M sHIVANAN13_AP?A--,
AGED ABOUT" 45 YEA  '
OCC'. PRIVATE .I;:y1PL..O3UT 6 YEARS,

2

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
R/O NO. 73, 2"" MAIN ROAD.
P J EXTENSION.
DAVANAGERE.

G M DINESH
S /O LATE G M MURIGEPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

R/O NO. 73. 2ND MAIN ROAD.  V
P J EXTENSION,  '
DAVANAGERE.

G S SIDDESH  -

S /O LATE G M SHAMBHU--LINGAPf'A-- . ' --

39 YRS, R/O NO.573
Sm MAIN, 'MAHDPEV'
PJ EXTENSION ' "
DAVANAGERE

- SINCE  By' V'  

SMT;VE.PU'S_HPF:;:A.GUNIH
W'/O LA1TE,G S..SIDI)»ESH -
AGED ABO 38,EY'E,ARS; '
OCC; IIOUSEHOIE " 

MASTER 1_\VTII«:I9I'ILA'. V

.. /O LATE GS SII3I)ESI~I
-  AGED ABOUT'  YEARS

NITIIIN

 5(b.)' &- {5} ARE REPRESENTED

BY THEIR MOTHER &

--- A.  NATURAL GUARDAIN,
'' _ 'FETITIONER5 (21)

ALL ARE R/O NO. 573,
GT" MAIN, "MA}{I)f3V".



P J EXTENSION.
DAVANAGERE.  PETITIONERS

(By SR1 H SUBRMANYA JOIS, SR. COUNSEL. FOR 
SMT.AKKA1\/IAHADEVIHIREMATH. ADV.,)  '

AND:

1. SMT. ANITA
W/O MG BAKKESH.
AGED ABOUT 33. YEARS,
R/O CHAMRAJPET, ' '
DAVANAGERE  
TK & DT: DAVANAGERE. 

2. M/S SR1 S1DDESVxrAr:A'rESTJLBSV.B 
MILLS (P) LTD..    "
NITUALLI VILLAGE...  _  '
DAVANAGERE, H '   ' 
REPRESBN'r}B';D BY «1*:=S"D1REc'ro"R;*""

3. SHAH TRADERS, ,  .
NO. 540,' 
KB   
DAVANAGERE.  A'

 4. ,.._§gDA'V'ANAGER:E HARIHARA URBAN

~ SAHAKARA BANK NIYAVIITA
V. _, _ DlEA.E<'--QNION MARKET, P B ROAD,
' 'DA'[ANAQERE.

5fl __"'%SR1_JA&jAiAKSBM1 SPINNERS
 JAYLAKSHMI SREELODGE.
ANNEXE P 8 ROAD.

 A  DAVANAGERE.

    --=;}AYANT1LAL

S/O MAGIMIAN LAL,
AGE: MAJOR.



R/O KAIPET.
DAVANAGERE.

TK 8: DT: DAVANAGERE. 
. RESPONDENTS

{By SRI S. BASAVARAJ <3:

SR1 H.S KIRAN KUMAR ADVS. FOR R2,

M/S JAYARAJ 5; ASSOCIATES FOR R4.
R-1, 5 8: 6 SERVED,   _
Rm3 DELETED.) :

THIS REVIEW PETITIONDVIS FILED 'UNDER?lO.RDER§ 4/7
RULE I OF CPC, PRAYING FOR-REVIEW OF 
DATED 24/1.1/2008 PASSED OS,AI»4/200:1 'ON THE FILE
OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARI~TA'TAKA, BA3\J'GA.i;ORE.

MISC. CVL 6964/263.0 IS I§II§EDj»..U:«IDER ORDER 22
RULE 3 OF THE CODE __OF ».GI\.»*IL_PROCEDURE, I908

PRAYING T(%).GV.B*RRI?§EG "*TH4E'55LE:GAL REPRESENTAITONS OF
DECEASED .APETI1'ii§D.NER =.NO.5~,~-...IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE 8: EQUITy.'l_   --

IvIISC';.CVI_. '"26/:5,00I'€}J"_i:IS FILED UNDER SECTION 151
OF THE CODE 'OF 'CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO
CONDONE TIAIEADELAY OF 14 DAYS IN FILING THE

.f"'~REv-IEws..;-APETITION'""IN' THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE &
   , 

R , "THIS."RE?I}IEw PETITION ALONG WITH MISC. CVL

V V _ COM'.I'NG<.VON' FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N KUMAR J., MADE

 _  «THE FOLLOWING: 



5

ORDER

There is a delay of 14 days in filing this petition.
Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit. filed V
the application. delay is condoned. Misc.W.
allowed. _ 4. ~

2. The application ~
bringing the L.Rs. of the deceaseG…_petitionei’.No..:ol”:oVn”‘1*ecord ” V
is allowed. Amend the cause titles ‘ H 2

3. This review petition is filed llseekiiag review of the

order passed this in OSA

No.4/25308. reVv.iev.fjv.petitioners are not parties to the
said proceedings.._.lt:_l:is btlieiirgrievance that the said order is

affecting theirrpviriterestti the order has been passed

2 2′ i,f’iea1–ing thenif it

order could be challenged before this

Court and be the subject matter of judicial review by

Court, proper procedure would be to prefer a writ

invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

challenge the order as held by the Apex Court that judicial

E/r

6

review literally does not mean review as understood under

Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In t,hva_t”

of the matter, this review petition filed under .

1 of CPC strictly is not I11ai11′{,E1i11EilQ]fj. ‘I’lie’refoi’e;.ll””;:>roApe!:ll

course for the review petitioners isgto ;prefer’ea writ

challenging the said order and’ Inakingalll part.lie’s,_: were

parties to the said proeeeding;fsV;.?:’a.sVV pariiels ‘ to the writ
petition.

5. In that: 7¢fl¢W of”‘t.’heiiinéxtter, petition is

rejected reserving «toathe review petitioners to prefer a

writ petlitionehstlleiiging the lveryiivsaiiie order.

Sd/w
JUDGE

E3

-Efl
53 is
E ) gm
K33

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information