Loading...

Sri C C Venkatanarasihmaiah vs H L Narasimhamurthy on 10 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri C C Venkatanarasihmaiah vs H L Narasimhamurthy on 10 December, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy


IN THE H’IGH. COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE kt?” DAY 0;: DECEMBER

BEFORE:

THE H()N’BLE MR. .It;sT1CT3 _A.NAND_–BY”R:§2XVl§E’f)13Y’ ” M’

WRIT PETITION No. 2455:’OF’f?:007
BETWEEN: V % X T %
STE.C.C.Venkatanarasi1T;h;,1iz1}1,..”””

Son of Chikk’z1venkat211’ayéIppa,_ ”

Aged about 58 Years,
Residing at C.C.Ci1’c1e,:.-“– _ if V’

a
K()1z1.i:f562.l()1.’–. _T__”«.M . j PETITIONER

( “B y S111*i:H . H 2-: T: Li {E3 i1”:iAti1.:.-::15’pT;T.: ‘Ad vocafie)

mil;

‘ ..vH’..L;N}f:r;:simhamurthy.

‘ ., 0f~Hf.~V .L.N .Murthy,
2ib(mt 34 Years,
,.Ri::’.:,iding at Prashamhnagar,
.. C:_mk1<aba11apur–562 101 '

A C.R.Nata1rz1}L1,

Son of Late C.G.Ranganath,

Aged .:1boL1t 33 Years,

Residing at N().262, Kand21v;t1'apet,
C.hiE<ka1ba11Ea1p1a1'–562 I0}.

%'»)

S0mashei<a1r.M

Son of Late K.i\/[Lisa-ippa.

Aged about 34 Years.

Residing at NQ293/28,
Mosappa Krupa,
Pl’£iSi}E1I1[hm1g£’il’,
Chikkz:b21ll21pu1′–562 I01.
Raviehzmdra, I
Son of Late V.N.Venug0pa1,’.__

Aged about 34 Years, V

Residing at N0.l23l. Pfiigiiidavarapet, .

Pra1shant!maga1′, .

Chickb2t}.1a1pt:1′–5fi2 l()}. _.._. ‘

A.R.Gangadhai’, ‘ T
Son ofRavm2tiah,__ i

get} ab’e.u”t- ‘

i3,esi—ziing ;tt”Njo. ‘i~.i;”B.St:”eet,
C !1″ir_.:_4E<ba Hapur'-.5 6?, I0 I .

. Qzzrigzi Re{i<!y…_.«i
. V "'S:0niu.ff.Late Seethappa,
_ "2.V1baut 33 Years,
" "ii-it Kuiavara post,

Chii'Ci:§32!iiiii.£1pLIl'-5 62 I0} .

" I-N.Raj21s]ieka1',

Son of S.N;1njappachz-M2,

Aged about 33 Years'.

Residing at No. I 39, Karkhaiiepet,
Ch.ickb:i1lapur–562 I01.

8

3

8. V.I\/Iunikris}ma,
Sun of Chikk21ve11_kz1ia1’anwenappa.
Aged about 35 Y€.zn’s,
Residing at Kar1davarape.t,
Old AEO Office Road,
ChickbaH21pLu”–562 NH.

9. N211’aya1naswar11y,

Son of Kod21nda1′;1maial1,

Aged ztbom 33 Yezgms,
Residing at Ag21lagL1:’E<é Post, '
Chickba1}apur–562 10}.

.10. John Kenady.

Son of Wiiliam Pxfzikash,
Aged about 34 Ygims.

Rés’iTa’ia£g-at N;ig;’72’8;.«C&1an1Lfia;;pe:,
(:_hi(J.k’bElV1léipii-P5672″”1.Q.§’~… ‘ ~

E E. K.KUmé1z’;1sWgtziigg’,”

, S021 (>f'”_L;1te’ €7;V.K1’i>§!ane1;3pa,
~ Agm ab()1it*35____Yez1s’s.

R’ésic{Vin.g at Near KSRTC Bus Sianci,

* ” A . _C’,.hi’ck_b:1;I’izapur–5(32 :0 a . … _RESPONDE{.NTS

(By Sh1’i.TLSEfi:15E\»’z1sz-1:}, Advocate for Resp0r1dr3nt.N().] to I L

Shfi’;—Suxteéh-.vE3.Deshpandc. Advocate for Rc:<pm1de:H.N0.1 to

W._11_)

V b' This Writ Ptttition is "flied Lrnciez' /='\rti_L:Ies 226 and 227 of
the Constitution 0f1nd%:,=: praying; to Cali for the entire records in

u .H'M.A.N0.7/2(')()4 on {he file of the Civil Judge (S€I1i()1' Division)

and IMF-'C, C}aiRka1b;1!}apu1' and set aside the judgement and
deu1'ec: dazed: 2].2.?,(')06 Vida: Anncxure–}' and K to the wrii

3

petition. by confirming the order passed by Civil ludge {Junior
Division) at Chiekbttllapur on i.A.No.l in ().S.t’\l'().l6___6/2()03
dated: 28.l.2()()4 at Aiii1exLi1’e–H allowing this writ petitlioti, and

This Writ Petition coming on for pr6li.l1].it1a1:,ty hve.a:rihg; this

day. the Court made the following: —

The petitioner was the pi’ai.ntit’f he.t_’oi*e thee.’ti*i:’ilv::_t_)ut”tl§

2.. The dispute is”betwee’iimtl’i’e.:’pl;ti’t’itit’f attdHlt’hellldet’endant.

The trial court having grtmpteflltei’n.;3.oi*a«ifyinjtmction at t.he

irtstziriee of tulielapeti’tioi’iept:”in’ the year 2003, the same was
ehailengeld.__4bly_Wayof”appeal before the First Appellate

Coo-Tait, Wiiicii hziS”\f:-,tC_{lte{l the orcler of injunct.i_oti and setwaside

‘ =()1’Ci§3lI”i(‘:)’i*”i.AlIflli’1f3 trial court. It is this. which is sought to be

Lilitlllllellgedi -ii; this appeal.

it is neetlless to say that in tnzitters such as this, it

wtiiiigzi be futile for 21 Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction to

_ihi_pose an opinion in its own, when there is no infirmity insottu

as the procedure that is followed or the di.scret.i()n exercised by

Z

the Appeilate Court is concerned. It is appropriate that {he suit,

which is oftht: year 2003 be h€£il’d on merits and is di.:;p(is;e_d~V.Qf’.

Hence, the writ petition is rejected. as there is_.i’i%a gAz}(fi>fli’id

coiisidei-atioii Gfthe same on ma;-its.» –

J]

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information