High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Jayakumari W/O Sri Lakkegowda vs Smt S C Chandraprabha on 9 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayakumari W/O Sri Lakkegowda vs Smt S C Chandraprabha on 9 January, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath
IN 'EH3 HIGH CDURT OF i{3'sRN.¥L'.E.fi.KA AS S.3§!~I&ALQB.E

ngwgn mars mum 9"'nAx or am§uA2z, 2339

BEFGQE

was KQH'BLE mx. JUSTICE K.£4MAHJURA§H* f{I:-"

wxzm pgwzrzen No.l5315/2006 {GM cfic;"i°
3E  i V

Jayajcumari at/9 LaJd:egowc§;a._,

55 years, No.2'?, II Crai:3._s;~._

Srirasrgouram, Bangalore-21:,    
R/by GPA Holder Lakkegowqg;g_;, ~9a$I:xoaEa

(3y=Aavocata sri;SIKg#.cha1a§a§hg}

S . C .  Tbci-,f._ ~ «S; Cheluvaxaj

Naiciu, ieajécrr, "3~§'o.;2'?,& "sit! Cross,

Sriranpuram; Bjang'a,_J.ore-21. . . RESPONDENT

[fang Advoc$te~sz:.x.sn1va3i Rae}

‘L *mhxs wait Petiti9a is filed uadar Arts.22€ &
22′? *~..__:>f CZc2n.stitutic:x; of India ta: quash the

_ j.u1$«1zgne§,exr.ier dated. 5.9.2f.3G$ v.’§.«::§.e A:::ae*::r:::re-~..T§’

“a_§assed §n I.A.36 5 37 in o.s.s13a;94 on the £118

‘3’-“III Addl. City Civil Judge at Bangalore and
‘za,;i.;1g;;w’1.’ the apgalications fixed by the petiticner.

This Petititm is coming on for preljmgmaxy

‘héax¢ng in B-Graup this aay, the Cduxt made the
fcilowing:

This petition is by the p§fit£Gfié£ *M

cha;1enging the order passed by the_t:$a; ¢§urt

on I.1§..36 5; 37 in o.swa13a/942:’ b3g’r $;:j’:.F’:é__

City Civil image at Eangaignra. W. pé;»titi¢né.,-3′ “:13 the- V

defendant in the auit. 15* .£i1T-54:1 “1j;y4;z;e
respoadent–pla1ntiff,’tp réétr¢in7 the ‘pétitioner
£30 puttifig up any ¢b§str§t;gfig¢§ §xte Ea.£?,

:1 Cross, sr;r;murahg ‘Eanga$Q;e+2;: aontxaxy tn

the 1i@ensé” an§§ aac$1oned plan. After the
evifienaévof tha ygxfiififi is ovex, two Inks. were

f:i.3.ed hy £1;-=.= pe’E:i£;_’m :;”ex as I..A.36 5 .3’: under

‘vV.{) ird&T%:;.1E;:’-.V’ Eu1a~ni7’§–a«” and under Order-«S mzm—

€ifa?f3}*_yE?w:’asec&151 af SEC. hefie twa

ap§;i§atiofi$A%are fiismissed by the trial court on

5n§s2§¢€§ §eing aggrieved by the same, present

“_petiL::,;an”‘ is fiied.

.R~ Z,5 In4 these two g§9&icationa, patitioner has

u req§e$t$d the caurt to permit hex ta lead further

eviéenfie and to condone the delay in pxadauxag a

modified sazmticned plan to show that her
constructian is in terrns of the sanctieneci plan,

The sa;§.<;3. agnrplicatians were oppcsed by 'the

zespcmdent, on the ground that it is filed. 0:13.33"

drag an the praceedings and to prejudice .3. 4'

of the court . Trial. msuxt , a¢c:e,9.t;j,'1_:'.i'g'_ V

arguments of the learned c:1:z1;se.l’1*:a;;s; _

the applieationsn Tharefore:.,_ préaeiz-t pe1:’:i;’.f:A:iA;¢;~n” :1;-.2

filed.

3; }iav:”é;i3§* V£2&é’§:,z’d “‘<:z§iinse'3 _,;"i:'§$r the parties; it
13 x2ot3'.z:é.~s;1" by .t1i$§.,,,.'<§::1:1i'?¥;"'V..the main amx 65:" the

Hatter befdaqé = Vt};e ._ S €;.:::*§.a.L aourt 3.5 whether

_.*p¢t,:i..t.fi;<§;;a;;4€i'efe;:nfi:23.m;___'ha5 ccsnstructeé. the builciing

i;1» a:vJ§C'QrsZ1}a1}C£?._';§Fith the glan appraved, During the

pegaéhcy ¢'§§..__ fgfggié suit; if tha petitioner has

zabtaxziied =!i:::i:fe mofiifiied plan and 32.: the building

AA hgenvvhxought up in terms «of the sangticnad

3,=.1'a;1jVf"~–Ain the interest af justice trial. ccsxzzrt

5:%§<::?,2L"£,d. have allawed the application fax

""p:i:*&éu¢t,i;*; 9f the éacmmnt. Szizme the same 31.5

:9’

-4-

net crziered, this court is of the oy:i.1jag4:~fi

great ingustice is caused to the petiti§n&r; R£f’u

the application filed by .t4e pét§§i§gé: gi$_V

almwed, it wouid avcifiy 1§miti§;i:$g§ _§r

praaeedingsx

4. in this 3c>ac;3i::z_;f;ro1;:117:d; * fiévtifiiéan is
allawedg :.As, £§iga =§§f %§§ ,§§:1t1onex as
I.As.36 & 3′;4.g%g.1_1o,;jsfé;3,’3I§,.$éffj’g.~;:;u V’t3a»v%’;¢; i’ile: of city
Civil $4;-a__ m1va:;ereb3? allowed,
9et1t;b§@fuB;§aY§ér§ifited €§ proaeea with the
fux’the,:i’_« matter as eaxiiy as

peas,ib3.$ , 2 L

%%%%%% &
Judge

fl/1561fiQ