' E.' Vr€fikfiE3$f1:7.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED Tms THE 28"" DAY OF }ANUAR'i:f3Q'i'5 f.T "vv.,
BEFORE:
THE I~£ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE. ;g:$i}aNDT%§s.YRAgEp1§T*ij;
WRIT P1::Tm0N NQ;13863"O F'20O7 " %
BETWEEN: Z V M V
Smt. Papamma,
W/0. Late Thimma, ._
Aged about 24 years, _ j
Coolie, Hindu,.vB'ho'§«--i C::s_E0r1__y,...'
Hosamane Read _ _ V
Bhadravathf. feS'i€ii:}"g-fgjavt. " :
Koogaajiahzlfli" 'T}ia'I1'.--Id:a,_ fI(§'1;.n_aEE"i Ta1.11.3{,
Davange-re 1;)'is:::c;. PETITEONER
(B y ShrAi'.'I?, H. _V ifz:;§ai{§s'E: 'Rd vocate)
' - "SEQ."vDExida:Kariyappa,
N 3 'I\..'J
._ }xge'(i flout years,
' Hindu,'Rfa'Mai1.iganahai1i Village,
P1016-h0r'::it1r Hobli,
Bhiadfiavathi Taluk.
V._?\éf}fi.uruga alias Murugan.
1 8/0. Subbaraya,
Aged about 28 years,
5
f\.J
Hindu, Driver,
R./a Arabilachi Camp,
Bhadravathi Taluk.
3. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Shimoga.
4. Siddamma,
W/o. Venkatesh,
Agricuiturist,
Aged about 34 years, _
R/a Mailigenahalli Village. "
Bhadravathi Taiuk. RESPONDENTS
(By Shri.M.U.Poonaiha, no.3,
Shri S.V.Prakash,VAdvoca.te_for i'espg>ndent'n'g../i)
This W'Vrit_Pet7i1.tiioaiis,.._f'i1e(i under Articiezs 226 and 227 of
the Cohystittitioni of-~E.ticl»i,2t"piféi'3Iiiig to quash the imptigned order
vide Ariitexuife i4.04.2(')O7 iii I.A.No.3 in EX.
No.18/2006~passed byi'f.hie'~.iearned Civil Judge (Senior Division)
and yifxdditionai'-Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal. Bhadravathi.
This _Wr._it Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in
the Court made the foiiowing: --
ORDER
T. i Heard the counsel for the parties.
{>
2. The petitioner had instituted a claim under the Motor
Vehicle Act. E988. seeking compensation in respecit*’.ot7VT:ithe
death of her husband. The Motor Accident Claiinsfi”ribi.;:nailiiiiz-id
allowed the claim and awarded c()iIipeinsatioi«i of
with interest thereon against the respondeiiit nos. E:ganid”2″lie’rei’n.ii ‘-
3. The fourth respondentis. to b’e._the r\.i»’:1it’e”r)f the first i
respondent. The petitioi:1eri_ llélffli tiilpedi.._a.ti”eXecutioin”petition to
enforce the award and tAhev”decre_e fparised’~:lj;y -the Tribunal for
realisation of The–petitioner had sought
for at?V:acli1nientiVof i”pi9ope1=ty in the execution proceedings in
respect or s’ui’ve’y..V_iioff’30f§.___ine’asuring 1 acre of Malligenahalli,
Bhadiaxxeatlii ‘T-21’lnl<,li which was said to belong to the first
respciiideiit faiid an order of attachrnent was granted.
ii';iii""Hi_o-vifever, it is contended that the fourth respondent,
who i3.~.tl1ie'vwif€ of the first respondent, in order to thwart the
exiecputioiin proceedings and the property being proceeded
had filed an application under Order XXI Rule 58 of
§