E 1 1
IN TI-E HIGH COURT OF KARRATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY OF JULY 2009
BEFORE
1. SMT. RADHA G. RAO
AGED 73 YEARS
w/o um: B. aummamayao
2. SR! PREMANANDBAINRJR,
szowrs aovmnam _ L
AGEDABCXITSOYEARS -
3. 8MT.DEVfi{A V '
13/0 UTE .1?-50:"
AGED ABOUT 44-f'£EAIi?s, &
2%
§
@
g
x
§
3
§
EE
2
%
§
§§
@
§fi
g
3
at
Q
m
E?
x
E
E
z
X
§
$
Q
§
3
Q
as
x
§
3
§
§
3
4. DR. naxnmsawna
Sf0MTE 3- WJTRIIHATH RP-0»
% AGED ABSDUT 48 YEARS
FVREPRMENTED BY HIS
" ifGFA__HOLDER 2w DEFENDANT
" P33 RIAT Ho.1os.
G0-OPERATIVE
,._*HC,!'JSmG socnmr L'l'D.,
,% 750.68, 15m cram, mammmm
-- 560 055.
E5'?-fiWAT&%& Héflfi mm"; WW
PET1'I'IQTE«R8
(BY mu VIVEKARAHD, ADVIBGEE FOR
VGA.NGfiBM. )
Wsmm WW4: €fm§R"f¥T&w$
get
$5
E3
3
$
:3
THE Hc:m'BLz me. .ms'r1c:Is Aaacnc B. HINCHIGI9E3:-V ii AL
wmmwma Wu: mmmmmwmm mwm m.wmmA ?»Jf,i';:' fiflflwffiflwfi mmm mwum" KW-M amammmm. Mtfiivé QQEWY Q? §€&@lM&"?&K& Hééfifi QKEQRY 0? %&§@N&"E'&%% WEQH fiflflfl
ma'. caamnmwn-n R. mm
w/o SR1 R.s. max,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
RIATAIII2, mrramasw.
mm mm, mausswmam,
mncmom -- 560 cm.
DR. smniaaauma V.V'KAI§i1%NP{FR
vim um um. xALYAnm£¢aao, A
mznszvmns, ' %
No.12 RUBAIK. w-=4 Rom. % %
KI-IAR (wssn naumauaxg-n 400 A052;
PRESE1fI'LYR_iAT1"§a.264,V
SI-M
HOUSEG SOCIETY I-2'11). I4
39.53, 151» cieosa.
'#4 055- '
AGED.-AB_L3(TF..?4,.YE&RS,
Na.1o4
isracnoss,
955
. Mammma,
wm%am mm. ,
. _"-AC2-E13) 79 males,
% RiA39Io.7o7, SI-IRI cnnmwn
,"'..<§-_+,0PERA1'1VE Housnm seem? Lm..
lmes, 15m moss, musswmm,
" - sec 955.
RESPONDENTS
(BY am 3.10′. wmnmcmnnna, Amvocam
ma c/121-41
3
nnswmmnnm mmn tmmn Anmns ms
Am3227o1′-“mm consrmmon CF INDIA PRAYING
mo c.ALLmR’nm meow xx os.no.2oaa{199s &
am’ Am THE onnzn D’l’.25.6.09, [IN m1im,1s}
Pnssm BY TI-E HONBLE vm Am…
VEAHH-G.
nus mmm comm cm FOR ”
order, dated C9urt<:ft1:n vm
I.A.No. %
g
3
.3′
8;
§
é
:
§
E
K
2
K
E
Saks;
§
:5″
Q
3
§
§
g
Q
3
E
a
2
%
E
fin
@
P9
g
3
§
9
X
§
:
2
§*
§
dam in brief are than me
respondeaztfi” 1995 against
Cooperative Housing
vLt’;:3..:;,.’:§¢=;4.;:*€i}ri:§1g the relief of declaration mm: the
éfiififfifi fiiifiififi”? QW
the sole legal hdrs of Law:
and for aonsaquential permanent
Earlier to that, they had also filed 0.5.
%mn1i+93/1995 mm: the petitioner Noa.1 to 3 an-
% %:he nmcmon of aooountgggua potitioners hasrein had
ii’
g ~ «.,,
3
§
4;;
§
g
E
a
§
2
E
ii:
5%
W:
%
3%
{M3
JUEm.BA1lG:ALCRE tccn-151 IR os.no.293a;1995,
Imam THIS DAY.
wwwmfi My mmmmmwwmm WGWW %m@mum£>.>J£%%fl:’7€m’?’¥_fi mmwmamm Wfiwfl mmm W? mmmmm Héfifi flflfififi”? Q? mmmmm Wéfifi iZ€3UW”@§ Kfiflfiflfifififia Mfififi fiflifm
4
filed 0.8. 110.218/1997 sucking the relief of
declaration that may are the legal mp of
Smt.Krish11aba.i and etc.,
3. The Trial Court by murder, zia.-mm:
a1.m..ea the W
o.s.No.149a/1995.
12.3.5, He.947/2ot::.,& R.F.A.
No.52/2002, to be pending
peiitionen who
am the %’hsj§i%%d,${w§.2o3a/1995 fi1cdI.A.No.4
for stay of the
or o.s.No.1+93/1995.
said holding that it is premsjzure.
% L the petitioners filed I.A.No.15 and
oftm . The ‘I’ria.1Court,byi’es
L % L. dated 25.5.2009 dismissed the said LA. mimy
.’ on the ground that aimi1arI.A. (I.A.No.4) was already
mjwtm owe.
RBK
:;:mm”%” W?’ i€fi§%N%L”E”?&%fl Efiflfi QWUQV %fi%W%°§fi3€#§ M§@§*’§ fifififi’? Qfiix mmgmim MEQM mmgaw fi€.&%%M’E”&.%& mam €;.”€LfiM§M’ W? fififimfléfiflwt mam mwmmi
5
5.Am-icvmbytheaatnc,thiapetitionia
presented. S1-i Vivekananda, the Iearmd counsel
appearing for Sri Vflangabai Ear the
submit: that the Trial Court has erred by Q %
the second applicafion is not K V’
the first application was not oti’.
support of hi
judment of the I-Ion’bit=; of
unmrrn reported in
Am (1909; V1′ relied on the
% it is clear that the
[opined thm before at
_be held to be mum: by rm
page must have bum. heard
dacimbnbyaommomcldbermfixwcata,
it be statutory under 311, am
m&w mammw
ofpubwpoliqtonwfzidxtiaearztfiedootrbme
rum. Byers m decision oar: be
%E
3
Q
u
x
E?
3
n»%e¢5″‘%i9W%¥3 WW mmmmmwmm wnsmw %…MmmiAw@_*:° mwmmmmmm Hum UQUKF Q? KKRNAIRKA HIGW mmm” U? fiflfifiwfififlflfi HQGW Cflfififl? 0? %%%N%(‘E%\, IV
6
aonsidwadas msjufiaarta theswraezmzst
Pnavebeanheardw:d)’i1*:aflyde#%.’
5. While may eoncecung mm:
delay can the part of the
application as: stay, he
(application am» stay)
preliminary of buttmaa
Calcutta of the urn
urn, v. sums.
1911 cumrm
aha read some of the
1;sue§%%iuc;.s,1ao;:w23/1995 and 0.S.No.2038/1995
show,’ in issue ‘a substantially the
” ‘ mitt.
app¢a1iaon1yaea::tinuax1oaao;;’theauitprocma1:;g
.’ The11a+fa’e, thepemoners are wtledto the stay of
1:hcprooeed1ngsinthenubo%auittiIlthn
8%
§.;WUfi%”i” W?” %fiWNA’§%Kfi WWW’? Klflfiflf WV; Kfiflfififfiafifi WWW’? amwm” Q? KARMAVQKQ fifififi CQUR? OF Kkflfiflfifififi HEG-H £2038? K)!’ KARNA”Wfl«K.% W¥€.I23iN {JUNK
9
8ection1Oareclca1;dcnni!:a.t1dmanda1aory.Itia
fixrtherheld thereinthatacourtinwhinh subsequent
mitts
trialcf that sun in ” ~–T
10. ‘mm the ma;
I.A.No.15 in not propu-3′ ‘
onbehalf of the the
thaxwen in the two suits
New to 4 auunm mat
‘ is only for readtion at amounts
in mpwt of the withdrmm amounts.
A mm, o.s.Ho.mas/1995 1. a. . more
X suit. He also mbmita thatthe parfica
atleast they are diment.
598%
warms-‘w»m»
w W5 mmmwwmammm mm»-2 «yummy Vkwgf zsmnméufimm maul”; uuwxx {W KARWRTMCA i-EIGH COURT 3? Kfiflflfiffiaflfi Wfifi Qflflm” €13? mmmzam HIQH 3&3}?
10
12. He also bring to my name that issue No.1
in O.8.Ho.1493/1995 in net answered by Trial
o.s.No.2oas/1995; therefore, he
in no question of the: T
0.S.No.2038[1995 ooIz1ingV L
judgnmnt ,,,.,.,d byjm. ii,
o.s.1vo.1493;1999.5_& cjw
R.F.A.N’o.52/2002 1993.
‘the artist in question
reasons; the reason
or may not bc correct. But
at in dismissing the I.A.No.15
= V’ the petiflcncra have made similar
in the pending R.F.Ap fiar stay of the
” in O.8.No.2038f1995 and
.’ O.S.No.2l8/1997. The patfiioners could not persuade
this Court to grantazzirxterimorder ofstay.
58+!
mwfiamé M9?” Wfimwfléfimfl Hflzifl %.1U&3R’E f’£5.W’ %%KW&”$%.K& Wfififi fifififiifliw 0? mawnmm mam €W¥.JK’%” U?’ KARNA7f&i€.A ifififl KZQKJKF WE” mawzmm M%%§'”§ QQUW
11
14. 81-1 Pranhanth Chi, the ieamed counsel
for the mspomicnt submm that he takes exceptipn to
the conduct of the petmonexs. He submits
petitioners have cram-examined the
that am is filed. Ho submits
to the suit are above 75
prays for the early
15. : ‘ sf . counsel
m. I s’e§”éb:i§ifi§rabie–: ::’ force in the subunits’ ions
d’ Sri counsd 121- the
_ the stay on the grouni msxthc
V not diaposcdof en me:-la, it
V of holding that it in pte–mmu1e, as thc
‘ . cane suitwem mt yet fiamd.
698}!
“–j ~ L%’c5’1;$;H§;5zi«3/ 1997.
mwwmfi WWW mmmmfimwmmm mwm mwmma: m.~a;§1* EWWWMQWRM mmm mmxi Q? KARNAYAKA Wififi $05.33? {W Kfi.R.N&”ffifi& mmg mm? Q5 mmmmm HIGH cam”:
12
17. But then, the question that arises in
whathcr the proceeding in O.S.No.2038/1995 are
required to be stayed. As pointed oum:y%sn
Praahanth Chandra, some of the
proceedings are difierent.
commhensive than the ‘ J
O.S..No.1493f1995.
15. The 10 in ca prevent Jwwction M suits in respect of the same in issue which is and
0.S.No.2Q3_8[i9i95 ‘ ‘thee plaintifiis pram:
[ of deceased m-ismmbara
dispoaingof c>.s.Na.1+93/ 1995
the ham: in View of the
Z 1 of cs.Na.2o3s[1995 and
13
19.’rha1@art,Iaminformeda1t11eba1-thatm
interim order’mgra:1tedinthependingR.F.As__te stay
the proceeding in the suit. No is
conaclusion 3
mm mst3¥jAisno%aeeafi;t foreeeuiim-rexunce in the
ma.tter:; ” ‘
gmemmm fifififi CQMRY Q? KARNAVAKA REQH €C§%JR§’ OF B(.a%%MA’E’AKfiu Efififimi QQMR”
mm, of mm at
‘ ‘rm: Court has refused. to
imei ” the material issue in
% ]e§;;.s.Ho.149a/1995 leaving it to be
in o.s.No.2oas; 199:5.
.. ab}: The parties to the twa proceedings are
partly difiemm.
fig}!
a,..w%.m$ WE” wwwmwazm WEWM %C£3&§%”§ 7%? %%fiM&Y%fi%. fifififl Kfibflflfi” $5?
forthcoming as to why there was at 4_
years in making the applice1:a::’ rs. ; 4