wp 15355.0'?
{N THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA f A'
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD ._ ' _
DATED THES THE 16'"! DA? »6F_:A'?gt;, "
BEFORE
THE HONBLE
WRIT PETITIQ15: No.'V1-S8-E35,?2'€)0f7{G§\£4CPCl.v 3
BETWEEN:
SIDDANAGOUDA'DEsA{c;0U-ma; _ «V ;
S/O MARIGGEEBADESAIGQLIDAR, 3
AGED 25YEAI~.2S,5j" ., 2
RESEDENTOF'I3HA'€:§fi_I.AF1}R'V"--_
TALUK RON--,.VD§S':!§ GAE)AG*I_' H E
REPRE$ENTED BY1::}!IS"GFA HOLDER
SR! '2'; CYFANAGDUDA SAKKARAGOUDA
DESAIE,-'«OUDA.R,' 42 ,YEARS, 1. ' -
RESID EN'I"OF BHASALAEIJR
TALUK R0:§I,*D1sT. GA1:+AG...
' ...PE'I'I'I'IONER
(53% 312:, x.M.i-:AfrARAa. ADV.)
' "§iHANVI§l@;PRAL"i.OUDA RAMANAGOUBA
'tmsmnnam SERVED.)
DESAICEOUQRA, MAJOR',
RESEB'-EN'? "OF BHASALAPUR,
TALUKAEON, DESTRICT GADAG.
" = ...RESi"0NDEN'i'
THIS PE'I'I'I'I{)N {S FILES UNDER ARTICLES 226 ARI) €227
€313' THE CONS'I'ITU'!'¥ON OF INDEX PRAYING TO QUASH THE
" IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANX-A ET. 27.8.2007 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE{JR.DN) AT RON ON I.A.NO.4/06 IN
O.S.NO.171/2001 AND CONSEQUENTLY, REJECT THE
AI3'PLIA'I'ION I.A.NO.4/2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND
ETC.
wp 15355.07
THIS PETITION COMING on FOR ?ReLIM1NARy_”r:§5Aeié2ix§e,
THIS eavxme comm’ MADE THE FOLLOWING: * .
Even though the mater
hearing, with consent, it is uf) fat fiziel
2. One filed’ a_’Vsuit against
the petitioner who declaration and
ixljuxletionwlledtfle property and also
to hdefendant petitioner is not
the adepied Petitioner~defendaI1t enters
V’ __ files’*w’ritten statement denying the plain’:
the pendency of the suit, the said
The respondent herein cla.iming to be a
A1egati:,’e,__lu.nder the will said to have been executed by the
Yankawwa, makes ax} application under Order
Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said
application was seriously opposed. Nevertheless, the
learned trial Judge has allowed the application %
//Z-¢
wp 15355.97
permitting the respondent to come on
this petition questioning the morjder 2;’1 1e* K
learned trial Judge on the appl::’tc;aE’geI1i1.e_:« .
3. Apparently, the nee
justified in ._ The
respondent claims will. Order
xxn Rule émcedure would
before disposal
of to come on record.
orderxjm keuggcode of Civil Procedure reads
as§1r1d§3r:4″4.’ vv .
‘~ in case of assignment before
“f3_§:7af3 ::’e::.der.:v:’_§n suit. — (1) in other cases of an
‘asS’iég11i1eiit,5 creation or devolution of any interest
pendency of the suit, the suit may, by leave
of be continued by or against the person to or
Whom such interest has come or devotved.
(2) the attachment of a. decree pending an
appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest
wp 15355.07
: 4 :
entitling the person who procured such attachment to
the benefit of sub-rule(1).” “f “f t
4. Indeed the application -.
circumstance ought to have filedu V’
provision. The application for
Rule 10 of the Code of wee: bye
the petitioner. ‘-as ‘under Order
XXII Rule 10 of the Code_”of the learned
trial held an enquiry as
contemplated eiieer xxx: Rule 5 of the Code of
exercise has not been done. The
iefgteteetlt the will would represent only the estate of
in the enquiry to be held under Order
:”5 of the CPC, the question of he being
_ .. , .o as succeeding to the properties of the deceased
the said will, will not arise for which he is
to file a separate suit. The grant of the
/
wp 15355.0?’
application is only to a limited extent to
estate of deceased and to contimjethe é
5. Having regard to faet t§eA”é;pp1ic3ation’ V L’
filed by the respondent miseoflceiveri, I am of
the View that the ; –._i_s liable to be
interfered. eoesequemiy, {me eerder is passed:
Petition:::””isfiV’ V. impugled order at
“A5535 trial Judge shall
traat “finder Order XXII Rule 10 of
the Code ” and proceed to dispose of
rd to the observations made by
order would be given effect to only if
: the’–si1itv__;’e pending.
~ I ‘–.R’uie is issued and made absolutze
Sd/-‘2’ %
Judge
kmv