wp 1323113?
: 3 1
:94 "§"HE HI{3;H CGURT 02? KARNATAKA
02120011' BENCH AT DHARWAD V
DA'1'E$ TEES ma 5% DAY 0? APRiL 200%..'
BEFORE ': ' '
mg: HONBLE MRJUSTICE: ;a;;»:.':f «LI.£'_§4»'I".,;fi,"s'I§"I"1%"£.--.'-L »'
WRI'I'PET1'I'EON No.13231}E '
AND BUSENESS, '- 5 ' '
RESiEZ)EN'I' 0}? RAMAPU1%')'E§E'£'E.,.'¢ "
'£'A§..«UK sAUr~:I:;.Is'3<t:fJ,- 9I:3':'.;B;~3:LGA{m.V_.___:Vi' V PEFITIONER
(BY zvi/S. §."*».iANGA'L-sf: 'AS$£:) C«¥!%"{'ES, ADV.)
Awbr» »
" V' 1, S§E:I§VRPPA TIPPAMEAVMAGANUR,
' v .3; Q 'PH£§~'%'Ft'aE'~¥NA MAGAMJR
V " TAGE;:'x_aB€:1;':"--5Q YEARS,
N
._ ,-'§G_RIQ§;§'LTE§RE, R/'O snassmmi,
A "1';a,Lz3:»A'r1*1,BELGAUM DISTRICT"
Szgéafiix DY£%.MA?PAiNCHAL,
A SjG.E3'YAMAPP&, AGE APPRQ 50 YEARS,
' *g;;0 smasamax, '§'ALU'£{ gauwsawx
V' - __Dl'ST. gaasmmg _.RE3$PCI§\?EDE§*I'TS
:3? SM, SM. KALWAEE FOR R2, A335'. R': 32.22:;
"§§i§*S PETITESN ES FELED UNDER AETECLES 226 AND 22'?
{BF THE CONS'i'F§'U'E'iC}l'~§ O?' ENDIA ?R£k'z"EN{} 'TQ CALL. 969 THE
ElN'§'fE4?.E EEECGRBS §sND PROCEEIEENGS SF' TEE CASE, BE
PLEASE13 TO 'SE'? ASIDE THE EMPUGNED GREEK DA'}'EZ§3
we 13231.0'?
2'?.2,2007, PASSED BY THE CEVIL JUE)(}EZ{SR9N} SAUN§f{'f'--'1'I EN
EF".i\fO.'?S,/O4, VEDE ANNU AND ETC.
THIS PETITION comma; on FOX? PRELEMINAR? _
[N 'B' oeoue, 'I'HiS BAY, THE comm' MADE THE :-::oLL.ov(ieN'o: v
oeoee
The petitioner has oh'taj11eo{" o
performance in O.S.I\Eo.61/ prior
to the f11ing of the has
sold the property in favour respondent.
After same was put in for
execution; In “Petition, the decree holder
moves a;;pn¢kae§;;% Order I Rule 10 of the Code
*’~.__of bring judment. debtor No.2»
on record on the ground that he has
property. The said application is
1 As against which, the decree holder is before
2. Apparently, the second respondent was not a
party to the original’ proceedings. Hence, the question fl
,/
wp13231.0′?’
:3:
of making an application to bring him
judgment debtor No.2 does not K ”
to the execution proceedings oi’;1y”
to the original proceedi11gs’§i>;f”t;1,}eir ~ dd
Indeed it is open for the vAepefi’ti.O12er t.e”work:§ out his
remedies elsewhere we fact that the
property is new éfenger
3,.’ “”” trial Judge was
riglt Ido not find any merét
intfi$petitiof1;v A’ S
d VA rejected. Liba’ty is reserved te the
§§¢r1; eat his rezmdy elsewhere, –
Judge
kmv