High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri C N Gopalakrishna Rao vs Sri C N Somasundara on 3 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri C N Gopalakrishna Rao vs Sri C N Somasundara on 3 April, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
'agsAva5J%.Agucz,%, BAiiL'5é!L.Q§iE -553 um.

huflfifi U?' WM¥N£W'fiKfl Hifirfi 5033:?-'3?' W€fifiNWi"%Wfi WWFW KEWUKY" €33" %.flRNATfiKA HEWM WUQR? U? KRKNJVEFMKA NEG" £2€'..?Uifi'§" wk' mmwmmam "REM COINS

IN THE HIGH CUBE? GF KfiRHATAKR, fiANGAbORE

DJWEEE: rmxs was 39.9 cm' GE' A9511» 2:51:39 H 

BEFORE

THE} Howsna MR. JUSTICE N.AuAH_u §---...  L'

s.’.9.N.4m2 05′ zooiftsfigcgcrx -:’
BETYEEN: ‘ . ‘

sin: .c:. rt. GOPALAKRISHHA HAO,
SEO LATE 3RI.C.NAHJHNDA RHO;%_ V
68 mans, amzsam ca:mfszAL –

sovr. SERVICE, GANDHI. PAZ3$AR– ”
1′-IAIN mm, 5AsAvA:m:;u£:.=1′,’- ‘ V
BANGALME:-569 01:104. .. ..

” ‘VEEYITIONER

{BY 39.1.5. $«;’r£;&Haiji,f§.DAS§T5;!€¥, iufiiacgvcféfii

ss<r.c.r;v_.s»:»z~zAs::3%r.:'2.Ia;rmb' _ * –
SKO LATE SaI.C,NfiHJUHDh; 49,
man 35:23:'? ~.':3a»YEms"_;j . '
AS L.R. 0F LATE $HT.9AfiMAVATHAEHA
am 8-L§'1'='£2., smmxx' sauna RAIN a.-I}:-.53,

..RE8?OKBEHT

{3v'–s§'a–z'.:4fi§£i:£;:a;:3A?rH Philifi 3,. AEWQCATE}

'fHIs"'.«w';i$. FILEE 1329:3512 ARTICLES 226 AND 22':

'ma: "::::;r3's=rx'r1mcvN or {N313 we QUASH THE eassa
. 'U3Tfi*28.i1.2OG6 IN MISC.341/RG05 ON THE FILE OF

-.1’e?”.A::£aL. cxw cxvzr. suns: (c::n«r-32) AT .au~rzm:ua5z-

»_ ._g:., “..B:s.1a::Az.0a£ cm”? mm ALI.-mt ms rszzs-::.3~s1i2a05 ma

THIS Y.?. COMING QR FQR QRBERS THIS HAY, THE

uCOURT HADE THE ¥fiLLOWING:*

GREEK
The lesgal representatives of the plajfigiff

in c=.S.No.23′?5/1993 had made an applicat;§’in:r:«’..’;;§:§§ié;f

Grder 4′! Rule 1 of CPC for rmdew af

in 0.S.Ho.23′?5/1993 urging the.’£c¥i3;Q§r3._;1§ g.tft:::.;;a§{S}_

a) The City Civil Judge”§_m;_1.ht fa %meT%%h¢%;a%%

that the allagad wi11″”a.§’taa 2*?~..1M %0.~§;9’éi:
was mat prcxvea’._.ar:d,””‘it’ ‘ 93$ r{dt”‘~A
accardance with 935 the
Indian Su;ca5siA:>n ‘_=,fi.§:f_§:.f_ -‘while
discusaigng’ ‘ V ithe . ,V,;z;”;§§::uice:: an
banal: 53t.3:’;i:_a ” g;gim:::: namly P:-r.1,

the «.’éau ljdV nczt have
esVéé§é6* ~ §§f’,:”tne Eéiiient features
in:”~.;~§’)§atiV§$t§i “t§ discrepancy in
the: ‘c!a tes Thia aspect was

vitag, _ jerk” <§'onaidérai%}5.<an to conclude

.3lla§gd…….a_ri11 was executed an

I-3'§?'.~.1_;o.1A'S%T_1*.4VA az:d the evidence of Pw.1 as

"ezfiéli 'av:€j~~..f;;'yaé~1§:-.V.1~::x.f 913.12 being silamt can

t3i=::,__" saz::e J.=.7.;;3;§ect. Hsncs, this apparent

Q e::reQ-1*.' <5; "record is one czar:-xrectable by

V 2~m.ziaw."V–* .

V. V”1″‘hé next ground is regarding

..m3.%intainabiiity of the suit after the
death mi’ the original plaintiff

wwwmw W vwwmawmfimmm wawm mwwmjrf ,.w;If'” mmxwmmwe ramm wwmm war mmmmmmwa HEESH CGUM” Q? K&RM’M”&%& Hififi cwum” KW wmwémmm mm’: CGUR’

smt.Padmavat:hamma. This issue auqht ta
have been answered and held in favmsr
0f the aafarzdant and further in

m. Cfh Vw eff”