High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Mamtha Neelagopal W/O Late … vs Sri P Shankarreddy S/O Late … on 9 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Mamtha Neelagopal W/O Late … vs Sri P Shankarreddy S/O Late … on 9 December, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
I
IN THE HIGH C.'(')URT (HT KARNA"["AKA AT BANCEAL-()RE

DATED THIS THE 9"' DAY C)? i')ECEE\/{BER 2('}(')_9

BEFORE:

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND  

WRIT PEIFITION M2359 GF'2£)()8    V'

BETWEEN:

Sm{'.Ma1m{ha1 §\Ee:.e!z'igopz1!,  

Wife of Lain: Ncclzgzogaal N;-zidu.  _
Agcri about ()6 Ycztrs, V    'A  T
Residing at No.1. 6"} CI'()f;$'S."  V V V

A . T. St   I_1t¥1'«;:i:'§;1'é'1   _
Bz111gz'11(11_re~56(1V()SVf3;, "~  ' - ...PETiTI()NER

(By Shri. L: Advocate")
AND; , "    

 -  S1~i.,_Pf'Si1z;L:ii<;;:" Red{iy,. ..... .. -
_ "S<3'M;f" L;1:t<': _P;L1p;1ia1!L
'  T  ;:1b<;)§:'I  ._\V"c aux,
'%T;2§es'@;:%;.u ;'it_~v£_}u':.5gic'}1 House.

5"" Maiizl VI.~2.<ia1&§_.'TV
OMBR i_§1}'i')Tl{..

'~ ..  "».B;'111z1s\¥a1g'!:'1,
A ..1"vB2mg.;-1l()1'e--56(}043.  RESPONDENT

_'  ('BySiari_Smasundz11'zz Dixith, Advocates)

8



7

This Writ Petition is tiled tmcier Articies 22$ and 227 oftlie
Constitution of India §)t'Liy'§1]g to qtiash the iamnugned ()I'(.i6l' vide
Annexui'e--A dated: 17.E.2(')(')8 p21.\'St'-Cl in O.S.N0.E5485/2(i)(')2 on
the file of the IV .»"\titlitit.>1"aa1 City Civil and Sessions C()iiE'I (CCH»
2 E )., Baiigziiore and ete.,

This Writ Petition coming on for pi'elim.inary he.t1i".i_iég<_ii';1v'B'
group this day. the Court mttcte the 'following: --  it   "

ORDER

Heard the C(.)LlI”i..\’CE for the petitie I1’t3I_’A_£l’I’i’:-fji the’ie:a_130-r.1<}Veii*itV5

grieved' the,»1*ejVeeti0n lit)?" his.

2. The petitioner is egg.

‘LippiiCL1v'(iti)’i’i’iS’C£2i{iI1g §’.ii:’3:}V:iL’I1i4’L’§I”‘VIV’]’t’3I’1E. T’i’ie’ proposed amendment sought
was to iii–;t0r;9t_)i’ate ‘$e;v:’;§i’a’t’!.__fj’z;ifagi’tt})iis in the piuint. This was at a

bei21terJ_st2tg_e” a”i.g.ht1y*. ])t.ii.I1[€(i out by the Trial C.’.0ua”{. Issues

.fi”We.i’e v.iiI£éi’iI’T3CV5~iiI1 tEiieiW§i1’t in F6-bI”U{ll’\/’ 2005 and the laintiff
, , . 5 V P

i”f'”3…'(&.’I”i’.iiiC.-13:'”hiiI’l1§t3.i,it{Hid was Ci”()SS~€XL’ti]}ii’!€d in Aprii 2(‘)(.)6. When

thehe-aisev-__’i2~};’:’:£:”Set (it’>W’I1 for the t’lefemizti’it’$ evidence. the plziintifls

.,:Ei’;:d..iiiedt air: Eiitei”1(>eLIt(‘)i’y application on E8.7.;?.(__)()7. The

tiei”t3:ritiaii1 had tiled his wriuen stateineitt on t7.().2()()3 taking at

specific piea insof’ai* as at i’egistei’ed saiie deed dated E L6. E990 is

ecmeeriied and that the property {nag been made use of by the

5

‘.40-J

B£1l1g’c’l](‘)!”t’ £)cvc3E<)pi'nc1a1 AL:1I'1<)a"ii'y for widtming the l'{)&'LL!._'..i"'!_I is on

this f<_)0t'ing that the Trial Court has :'i;–:jc:<:1'<:d the z1ppi*iu-z1.t_Aig's:j_;'

3. The Triak Cour: has exe1″<:§se.d its diS(;1't',,I'_:i"(')Di :'r_:jc:r:iir;.g

{he application. There is no w'.1m1r1£ flit" ime;j13f'c:'w:.n<;§:L*- Ti'".€'—_§}€'£i;vEEt)f1

is l't'j('.'(_'[t"3if.

WETV’