WA i\i0§50′?’Z2 of 2608
IN THE HIGH coum” 09 KARNATAKA-V % H
cmcurr BENCH AT ¥3HARWA_l’} : *
DATED “ms THE 23?” r;AYoF{&maAY<2 Q09
PRE$ENf; g _ X
THE HOWBLE MR..msTIcEFjj§.v.s§m%EmiRA§<k0MAR k
THE HOIWBLIE MR.J§8$ffAl§E'__k;N..i€Ei§4H§LUANARAYANA
"sgazkni APPEAm§5.50?2i2Go8
Sri Azéfiék,"S¥é}__H§;§;}n:§::nifir'ao« 'Hé§ViV¥'¥<a:',
Age: 6? years: Ric..Hebba|i'i,– ' '
Taiuk: i"}ha.'wa'c3.,_ Bist:'%ct..Dha?vvad,
Presentty' a_1.:V%C.. I .'"£"..B.' Aficlcfhy,
Jayanagar, 'D.h§3rwad. '- WAPPELLANT
V' ._ K'LSV;';";'5uT3VOC&fe)
'i,1"K§ahédV£§%;a;§3pa, Sic Kaiiappa Badiger,
'"Age2<iA Major, Rio Hebbaiii,
Ta3;:_¥<:: Dharwad. District: Dharwad.
7 kk25′;’s«ri Prahiad, sic Kazzappa Badiger,
‘ Age; Mafor, Rio Hebballi,
Taiuk: Dharwad, District: Qharwad.
3. Sri Suhas, Sic Hanumantharao Hebiikar,
Age: 65 years; Rio Hebbalii,
Taiuk: Dharwaci, fiistrictz Bharwad”
WA N0.50′?2 of 12008
4. Sri Vishwash, Sio Krishnarao Heblikar,
Aged: 45 years, Rio Shivagiri, Jayanagar,
Dharwaci.
5. Sri Vivek, S/o Krishnarao hebiikar, V
Age: 50 years, R/o Shivagiri Jayanagar, ”
Dhazwaci. ” ..
6. Smt. Radhabai @ Savitribai,
W/0 Madhavarao hebiikar,’ ._ –
Age: 85 years, R/o Laxmi Ro’aq;’r»
Shantinagar, Bangaiore. ‘
7. Sri Agit, S/o Maanavarac aewaar_
Age: 58 years, Rio La§<Vmi._Road;V '
Shantinagar, _';fs:3:_;1ga!_oreV; ' .1:
8. Narzdarxa;v$?o:E.3aVd£§.av’a:rao Héwikar,
Agra: 50 ‘years, F?/<0 La'xn_'fi Road,
Sharntinagar,' 'Bja.n4gario{g,'v~~.. ' –
9. Sri Anita4.Sio.vVénl{ara’ra:t;»Hébiikar,
Age: 62 years’,V.F:/0 Gokale Road,
33833′. MUmb3i«~rra %%%%%
.A Sri>vA1$:1rzi.rV;”$[o Venkatarao Hebiikar,
Agve:-.50 years, Rio. Gokale Road,
‘*–.Dadaf;’rjM£zmbai. …F1ESPONE3ENTS
fhis writ appeal is filed under Section 4 cf the
‘i<ar§'iataka High Court praying to set aside the order dated
. "20'G8.2GG8 in W.P.No.30429/2008, the order dated
._.:'E5.1G.2OG1 in 0.S.Na.314l2G{)3 on the fiie of Principai Civil
Judge Jr.Dn. Dhanread on LA No.10 and the order dated
18.012008 in M.A.89/93 on the fiie of Principai Civii Judge
(Sr,Dn.), Dharwad be set aside.
WA No.50′?’2 of 2008
This writ appeal coming on for orders
SHYLENDRA KUMAR, .3, delivered the foilowing: _ i Q 3 _
This writ appeal is listed’ befol>’A1’e.aC):i.e§r’tv
Office objections are velicl p%ipoletlriig ieutt its the
appellant that an eppeall”e..fA_thistlhetereiegeinstenuartler passed in
exercise of jurisdiction untler.Artiele:t22§.ef_’th’e_w_Constitution of lndia
is not maintainebte.,VL;j’-
éfitttttfihialekha, learned counsel
appearing for7t_he._cf the View that an appeal of
this nature agaipsttera er?e’e::’4i’rifi exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 22?..%fpf the (fieetittitiotfl at indie is not meinteinabie, and
efttee eijieetione upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Se/w
EEEEGE ‘
it »i’~’;me*