HVTHEIHGH(XNfiIPOFIQUUWXHUULETBANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY or NOVEMBER 2099 -V -_ PRESENT THE Ho1\»g1.E MR. 9.». DINAKARAN. V' AND THE 1~zoN'BLE MR. JUS'i'i_CE v.G;'sEEHA:ii15._f WRIT APPEAL No.37-42 -2oe9(Giv1:EQ)A Between V A V n SMTSANDRAEPRINCE ' W/O.BRIAN PRINCE : AGED ABOUT40 " " C/QKARKADA COMPOUND" ' opp S.R.S. HOME (EU_N:rs HosfrEjI.1 E ' UDUPI. .... _ _ __ ...APPELLANT (BY SR1 B1P11§;..A;;EGDE;';é;Diko:c AffE; ' And 1;' "SR1 5. A PRINCES/O LATE S.B.PRINCE AGED A_Bc.>u'.1j 45 YEARS, VR/'A_NO. ' LAYOUT, LINGARAJPLTRAM, STKFHOMAS TOWN. BA1\IGALO_RE;>--§f%60 084 PRESENTLY WORKING AT DUBAKB e3:'sULA1MAN co. P.O.BOX NO K500 ALKHCFBAR 31952 SAUDI ARABIA R/BY GPA _ "R/iRS.NANCY s SHETIY .W'~[ O'S'URESH C SHETTY __ "'R/A No.23, ANANTHRAM LAYOUT, 'VVLINGARAJPURAM, STITHOMAS TOWN. BANGALORE660 084 ...RESPONDENTS___
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U /s 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING To SET ASIDE THE oRDER’.I>AssED’I I’
IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 1 1047/2008 DAT.EDII2Q/(I’s/’2e0a. ,
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING LI?_FoR’—DI=:DERs;:0N
DAY. THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLI;OWING:»–.. . ‘ ‘-
JUDGIaIENT__ ; 1′
……_._………_…….._………_…….,.._…
(Delivered ;_J ”
Aggrieved passed by the learned
Single Judge (_f}Vl\V’/I-FC) rejecting to quash
the order date’c1a.f>..’7 passed by the learned
Principal Judge at Udupi. the petitioner has
came Ihiefiépeal.
V V’ _ 2. Efilearcl thelearned counsel appearing for the appellant.
E. .3!’ *»1n50ur cpnsiderecl opinion. no appeal would lie against the
irnpugrled order in view of the decision of the larger bench of this
Court in TAMMANNA AND OTHERS vs. MISS RENUKA__._AND
OTHERS reported in me 2009 KAR. 1207, wherein, it is .eb.sfe:§e;1
as follows: 3 ‘C C K K
“As a result no appeal would l_t’e…under_–‘Seetioh. V 2
of the Karnataka High Court Act again;?5t”the4.orde:: C _ f
of the Single Judge passed elxrercisetplqf the K .
power conferred under-.l:VgiA,rticleA’V’ 227
Constitution of India in the
an order made deetding the
Court subordinate the in: eo’urse of a
suit or other ‘proceeding:§L¥ «disposed of,
which is ?.g§lie};zei:ed_::bylSect:en..’1″i5’«o;P.c. and is
governed Kamataka High
CourteAiet:gfean:él§:A:in ‘mrztters which are not
at’tractedVVl§y.Vfieofion’-llivvfi C.P.C. and not governed
under ‘th:’e”‘f{ct, an appeal would lie
under’lSecttor;V’v.1 against the order passed
.. Section of the Karnataka High Court
V with Articles 226 and 227 of the
” India and Rules 2(1), 26 and 39 of
Vsr’-.?-it V..Proceedings Rules as well as Article
zrsiej ‘tel Schedule H to the Karnataka Court Fees
‘A T and..Suits Valuation Act, 1958″.
” 2
g
is
W/{M/kw
4. Hence, following the decision of Larger Bench in
TAMMANNA AND OTHERS vs. MISS RENUKA AND OTHERS
reported in ILR 2009 KAR. 1207, this writ appeal aIs0*.s_”i:–ei1’1–!,is
dismissed.
schfef 3t2e:~%:.*3:m e 0
Index’ Yes/N0 * — 1; H H
Web Iefostz Yes’/N0 A