-3"...
IN" THE HIGE CQURT CF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL{§'s»§§'E_V_
DATED THIS THE 3181* DAY OF JULY, ~2%<)2;§9% ;;MI[ f _
BEFORE _' %'% M
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTi(."3E E?mi'_i {1~¢:§A1;m1;t%xf:1'I?I'k%
WRIT PETITEON NQ.5OTE3...5F_ggQ7({}M--.CPCi1
BETWEEN: '}
Smt. KL.
Smt. Rathnza.' ' '
Aged about 65 j:¢3si3;'s, ' . .,
W/ 0. Latté"'E':I1I.A}%;:*is1"iivs1.'a1Ii11;i*!"h§,*;""~~--
R/at N(3V.665/A,'-"2-fifih.M'ai;fi,.,.. .
5th 'Phase, J.P.N.ag&i11, V
BaI1ga1ore'-5560 (ms, .' % ...PI«:1'rr10NE§a
_ (By "K*..P. Advocate)
3; Shankar,
W/a.3xi:«:. Shankar,
Ags;d":;1bOut 68 ycars,
AA R/a'i._N0. 109, 2911* Cross,
'rzazth Main, BSK 11 Stage,
-Bangalore ---- 560 070.
A Sri KL. Puttappa
Since deceased by his LR's
a) Smt.Prema Puttappa,
W/0 Late Sri K.L.Put%;appa,
Aged about 65 years.
b) Smt. Subha Girish,
D/0 late Sri KL. Puttappa,
Aged about 35 years.
(Both of them residing ate
No.4/86, 318' 'A' Cross,
733* Block, Jayanagar, ' _ . ' _
Bangalore -- 560 082.) o
3. 81111:. Mahalakshmizfiayak, _
W/0 Sri. S.V. Nayaicfié *; } " '
Aged about 63 ye.ars",_ ' V f
R/at No.542, 3§d cgoss, - .'
2"" B1ocK,?_1€.'1§:;~3?i'9»E§fir¢ é
Bangaicgzt?*.._5é()';'--_032_.--..__V" A ...RESPONDENTS
{By 85
Anand, 'Advoca1:¢$w fer '(A-8)}
'«..\:'0_0__0"
°"1'ms Writ pemm is filed under Articles 226 and
»'i2:§i*7 _ of,Vth§:.4V(3m__1stitution of India praying to quash the
%or;:er%c1a:ed 3.392007 made by the Additional City Civil
Ju:i--ge V'£iZ'.»Ci¢§' 32) dismissing I.A.2'6 filed in
(}.S.,__Nof937 ? /9'7 Vide A11nexure«F and allow LASZ6.
Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in
x V' ». 'E3' this day, the Ceurt made the foHoWing:-
QM
ORDER
The application of the 1211″ defendant filed unfier
Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking
pay the Court-fee and modify the
dated 12-12-2006 passed in o.s;No.9377/ A
learned City Civil Judge, Bangalofe, re§e_{:~;1:e<j"
Court: below. Hence, the pres'ent~cPeti'non; A
2. The learned _fc;§r jfliefpefitioner contends
that the ord.e1*”is:1’§):§CiA..in ie;w on facts and
hence is ‘ ”fer.’ The appijcation has
been “the ground that the zjequired
court-fee ..re1at}1onA’~t.o”tuhe share of the defendant has
fllacieh her. It is contended that the
Esfgierx deposited on 39-2-2007 which the
completely lost sight of.
” ‘ The learned counsel for the respondent on the
— hand contends that an appeai has been flied
mékr
against the said Judgnem & decree and hence’-.._no
interference is called fer. However, he is ~ V
as to when the appeai has been preferred.” M
whether it was prior or subseq”§ieiii”t-Q the’
erder.
4. On hearing both Vet1§éecc:;ns¢1s« of the
considered View that ganted for
1
the following rezisen: H
The iII1Pugned erder
has defendant has failed
to pay LeomtwfeeA’Aeiid.:’:fiierefore her share cannot be
ineerhgjgifirzagteei In View of the receipt for
Effiegziosjted amount vide Annexure«–E dated
of the considered View that the trial
fies-veemmitted an error on facts in passing the
‘ H ” :’ iéé ‘ ” order.
fiw
For the aforesaid reason, the order dated 3~3~Qi)O7
vide Annexure~F passed by the learned H
Civii Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S.No.93’77?f/1j’§=§7;
1.A.No.26 is set aside. l.A.No.26 2:3,; t:l_1e~:
hereby allowed. No costs.
rsk