High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Bheembai vs Sri Naganna on 23 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Bheembai vs Sri Naganna on 23 July, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
IN THE HQH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CERCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

mrrsn THIS THE 23*" DAY OF JULY  1 f » T f{;     .

BEFORE

THE HON'&.E MR. JUSTIQE .N,K. PA1f:i.5 %  '

BEIWEEN:

1.

BHEEMBAS WK) BHAGAPPA,
AGE ABOUT SEYEARS,  .
RIO SAGAR TQ. SHAHAPLJR; 'a

009m $ANGANNA SIC} BRAGAWA  
AGE-ESSYEARS.    _  2.  ' '
we CBDRANHALEJ, ":c;.sH_AHAr=vusg. _ 

BASAVARM    _
AGE32Y£*:AF£$g'*--.    L
RIO SAGARJQ, $fHAHfi-.P£1R;*v._' H 

sAN"éAé§G;m}{44A  Es aAG.§f>PA  V  V'
AGE:3OYEARS--,I  = - - --

mo SAQA3, Til,   "  .
NEELAMMA wro 

AGE: 2? YEFIRS, V . '-

sup "swam, TC'... gnmaéua.

V'<3§{hiG?iaM%}i.&¢WiG 
= AGE: 25 .\'EiAR$, RIO BU£)!HAL,
" V f_r'c:2,. $iNpCfi,'i)_lST.. BUAPUR. )

. .N&¥2M${.f'{\f-;i!(?1'?s§ALLANNA

AGE 23 YEARS, RIO BHUPUR,
TC}. LiNGSi.}GUR, D137. RAICHUR.

7 &rz:$a+=eAi:.A SIC} annaapwa
' AGE 20 vems,

* ,  SA-E-AR, TQ. SHAHAPUR.

.. PEUTIONERS

 v  3R!.$()fl¥fiAT§-i REDDY 8: SRLRAVEMYERA REEDY,

ADVOCKTES)

warr PETITION NO. 1314 at 2997 (Gm-t:fPC1%



AND

1. SRLNAGANNA,

SIC SHIVAPPA .3AYEE,

AGE 75 YEARS,

OCC: AGR¥CUL'i'URE,

RIO DOD SAGAR,

TQ. SHAHAPUR, 033?. GULBARGA.

2. SM'¥'.CHANMAi.LAMMA
WIO SANGANNA SHANTNOOR
AGED 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOU$EHOL{} WORK. ;
RIO SAGAR (DCJDDA) TC}. SHAHAPUR-. _V

DISIGULBARGA.    
 RESPONDENTS

(av SR|.VEE’RESH B.PAT¥L, Aci»*:;g:Arrs)’ 9 ”

THIS WRIT PETETEON I-.”:’5′ FILEQ UNf3Ei?_ARTif}LES 226 AN$ 227 OF
THE CONSTlTUT¥(}N%’.’3{-” INDIA; PP_.A¥|NG*TO THE GRDER DATED
14.12.2336 ON |.Ai._V lh.§€).S.33I04 {IN THE !.¥,E OF THE COURT OF CIVB,
JUDGE {SR.DN.},’3HQRFs~FEi_R, VIDE Ai’§&_f€:.”KUF§E«A.

Talswént i5ém,r_nm ‘- iion PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘3’ GROUP, maspgv, me gem? Mme THE FOLLOWING:

In fietitioners are questioning the

dated 14″‘ December 2006

in 0.S.No.31l2004 on the file of me

(Senior Division) at Shorapur, vide

jv»-v’44.}\n(:exute~fit. %

/WWW

3

2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for

pefitioners and learned counsei appearing:

respondents.

3. Learned counsel appeering..fer ii’

the outset, submitted that W8???

pent’ ioners does not suwive-fer oeneiderefieanjii the V’

ground that o.s.No.31i2po4 92* :55 iearfaad Civil
Judge (Senior already been
daspmed of. ‘:?éu!§eiiiited..t!T§ef the writ petruon
filed by diemissed, as having

4. by the counsel appearing

supra, is placed on record.

fibd by the petitioners is dsrrissed as

haifing L’ iiineiimncmous. Ordered acoerdngly.

sd/-

Judge

N*