IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATEIZ) THIS THE 23%!) DAY 0? OCFOBER 2003 K
BEF()RI3}
THE HOAVBLE MR. JUSTICE A S B0PANl§{§~».VV %
WRIT' PETITIQN NG.225/206$ * V V
BETWEEN :
1 Sm i~"'0ORN&SIN€3
3/0 LATE ANANTHA§$_&MS;!N(§-V, "
AGED ABOUT so YEARS" V
2 SMT:'VS'f}V§i{Ié*;?13AI.VE:'§.
w;o.AP00RNASIr§G-.T
AGEU AE30UT_55..:YEFs~RS' .
3 SKIP Brigxvazeisxmta
$.50 monnasrne
" _ AGEQABQUT GSTEARS
2:: T' Sm Pv%§§ag:h:*IfIT1g;r4 IS FILED UNQER ARTICLES 226
}5sg'22?'~{3F¥"rHE ..«::oNs'm'U'r10N OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER
'Ta; _Q:;A:«::H'ATHE'vQRDER DATED 13,n.20o'? PASSED on
1.'A%.Nr;.1x~ '*«.€}:S.'N(}~.87/05 3*; THE CIVIL auacm (SR.DN.),
DHA-RwAR'Ar3»:3 'REL. JMFC AT i{.(}.F'., VIDE ANNE)<2URE--A,
Ti1istW1'1;i4Petiti<:r:u eoxnitng on gm Preliminary hearing in
" " ':'Bj"gAmup, day, the Court: made the foflewing :
J»
'.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsei fbr the palms” :-3 V’
the writ papers.
2. The pctitjonttxs hcmiu if
O.S.Ncv.87/05. In the said ans; ‘tl;}3 ps1:ifisncrs :}:s§re./_V§5iefi
I.A.No.9 under Order 6 Rule 17 a 151 sf cps
praying t_!1sir writtc:-:n statement. A
perusal 0f as per the appficaiion
filcd which is seasabig at’-Afisexum-B to the petition would
that “fhe dsféfidsnts sought to irzcozpomts para
N’e__. opposed the said application and the
trial trgonsidezing the rival contentions has come
~ _’t’:C.-..,the cdnciusion that since tbs said pleading is already
in tins wxtitten statement, the application requires to
‘rejected, more particularly, when based on such
V pkadings already issues have {men framed in the”: suit.
A
m
at
S
and since the plaintifi” is bcfbzm the Court below
decree of specific performance, it is ultinzately A’
pIajintifi’ to csisablish his case. Thegreforc, the 3 b
that the suit for specific perfolnlancgt J
nwd not be incorporated by way améfidfixcnt. ” ”
Keeping all these aspects I 5.-:t__1 =c2f_i:.h:c
that the onim” dated 13.1A1.,2o07Awi.r.«:;§g;::ag.g:;md as péfifion
does not ‘ Aeairxdmgly, the petition
stands <3-;','v:1+1crV__'.as5 to costs.
% Sd/'_
%.%- %%%%% Judge
5, ®v