High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Kamaladevi W/O Somashekara … vs Smt Shantabai W/O Basavaraj Unkal … on 19 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Kamaladevi W/O Somashekara … vs Smt Shantabai W/O Basavaraj Unkal … on 19 June, 2008
Author: H.Billappa
 7._frHE CONSTFFUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
 _ 'QRDE1:z'=--:)*r. 7312.200? PASSED BY THE PCJ (SR.DN.) IN
 s.'1~:1o.3 15/2004 VIDE ANNEx.c.

VT  "  court: made the following:

11 KUMAR JAGADISH  
S/O SOMASHEKAR UNKAL@ KORLAHA-LL1_j'~., » 
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,  .   
occ; STUDENT, 

R/O BARDAN GALLI HUBLI.

:2 sum SHIVAPPA      
s/0 FAKEERAPPA UNKAL  KQRLAHALLI
AGED ABOUT 75 EKEARS3--------- _   
occ; BUSINESS,'   5     
R/O MATTI omH1'R'EPE*:;~{e.cHAw_L.V  _
GANESH PETH HUV13_L'i.._ I '  

13 SHRIlSEiW.€$_I?APP.A =:  A 
S] 0 E'AK~EERA--PPA_UNKALI<I()RLAHALLl
AGEL" ABm_rre:3.YE1:é.Rs,VA.»-- * "
OCQ; B:._Js':fi.§,jss,.,_"' _ * "  
:::;omAf:fr: 03¢: HEREPETHVVCHAWL
GfiNESHVF'1E?TB"HUvBL!.._  

14 SHRILGANGADHAR '
S/O FAKEERAPPA UNKAL @ KORLAHALLI
; 'AGED ABQU1' 60 'YEARS,

._f '~"«:.o§:__: (:; BUSINESS,-
,  R/0 MMTI om HIREPETH CHAWL

  (:;A,NE:sH"1PE'rH HUBLI.  RESPONDENTS

. V ‘ ;_ Sri.V KULKARNI FOR R1-6)
mis-w.P. IS FILE!) UNDER ARTICLE 225 85 227 op’

This WP. coming on for Preliminary hearing this day,

L1/\

but, they have not filed their written _

52007 and therefore, they have * V.

praying to permit them in file

the trial Court has Iejectedihe a1:V)’p3;i,'(ia,tVi

gound that the written smtexeefit has beyond
90 days and cannot be

sustained in law. vHe tfie.t”.the suit is for

partition emf}. 44 Wtifiggets if; LRs., of the

{hey are not permitted
to f11e:\._the’ it will result in great

injustice éind’the1*efeéje,.fitE2ey may be permitted to file the

_ é steteee’em;., H MMMMM ” A

‘A this, the learned counsel for the

eeseeeeeee to 6 submitted that though the

V –V fiave appeared before the Court on 1-8-2095,

H K x V Lt:I;e_y_}1.eiie not filed their Written statement ti}! 28.2.2007

–‘ only on that day they have filed an application

” permission of the Court in file the Written

ll?/-.

‘-.No.7:1;f’ ;,.érr2ey hsv(锑siibsistir1g interest in the property.
have appeared before the Court: on 1-8»–

time but the fact remains that they are the
of the deceased defendant No.1 and they have

_,,sr:1bsisting interest in the property and the suit is for

4w«’*°!5D'”?:, v
statement andlgzhe trial Court has righdfyfl the, _A
application and hence, the impugned (.i.’.’T_(iIf3_I’ <ieess'3_;gt'*c;;1}".

for interference. b _ A _ A ' V

6. I have carefully’
made by the learned cz;~1;f1s¢3″fOr.

7. The point is,
Whether ‘lgthc .s …9.I’dsr calls for

interferencis? ” ‘ V. J ‘ ‘

Iztfit’-*;*’,””t’.i41<=: suit is for partition
and ssfsxafate' $11!? suit schedule properties.

The pstifisflags of the deceased defendant

have not filed their written statement

L/d

partition. It is also stated in the petition

is just to begin. In View of my' ._ct:nsid§§fe¢§.

the petitioners can be penniued. _ 'file fiiair

statement, subject to paymeiitcost.

9. Accordingly; and the
impugned oIfi¢r pasS¢€i’ is hereby set-

aside ands. to file their
written from the date of
receipfigf-g ‘«:n ‘dbr, subject to payment of
cost of R5; ” ‘

Sd/–‘g
Judge

B ss’.”‘ A
Gsm.