'A PRQPERVBIDAR.
. Ag»;
A 'J NOW GURUNANAK GATE, BIDAR.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA.
DATED THIS THE 14' " DAY OF SEPTEMBER; 4'
BEFORE " "
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICEVASIIT
WRIT PETITION N0.26.31 o?_2oo3((;--1u¢§'(:i=cj; V
BETWEEN 'V . V ' V "
1. SR1 cHANDRASHEK,.AR: V _
S /O.LATE SHwARUDRAP.F:A'iArACARE»,_
AGED ABOUT 46 YEQARSQ jy ' . _
OCC:BUSI_NE__SS A;ND'AQRIc;U.L'rUR3a',;'»'
cHAMKoR1':QAL.LI:.._ PROPER B11:')AR..i
._ PETITIONER
{BY SR1 S S1vN.;ASSoC:ATL?;:S, :ADVS"},
..'-5%
A_1\_II2
1. SRXASHOKV '
S /O:3,_.ATE SHIV'ADRAUPPA TAGARE,
V .AGED"AJ3oUf:--' 54. YEARS,
AGRICULTURE, V
c,HAM_K0R1GALL1,
, D'iv~1AA_I1r¢AJ
, ' S/_Q'.'CiHANDSR SHAH,
A-SEDMAJOR, AGRICULTURE.
R/'QVILLAGE NARADSANGA.
TALUK BHALKI, BIDAR DISTRICT.
'responldentv are the joint owners of the Suit
pvfoplgsrty measuring 2 acres of Sy.No.50. It is
ofp16z'giL1ntas of the land by evicting respondent No.2
Ex)
3. SA.1\§GA.PI3A
S /o.SHANKERAP1I>A PATIL.
AGED MAJOR, AGRICULTURIi3.
R,/O.GAE\iESH MALDAN.
HOUSING COLONY,
BIDAR.
RESPO..NDE3N’i’€~ ‘ ‘
{BY SR1 SANJEEV KUMAR C PATIL, FDR’ . *
MANIKAPPA PATEL, ADV FOR R2) ” . ” 4.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILE?lD__ UNDER’ARiiVcLE’:s’2::6~..V
AND 227 OF me CoNST1Turfio_N oi?’ VIND1A’v:PlRAYWI’NG TO”
QUASH THE IMPUGNED oRDi:RVV.g<fo{iND A-'1"'_ANX-E PASSED
EN ORIGINAL SUIT moxie/19,96 DST. 'LSTH DECEMBER 2007
PASSED BY THE LEARNED c.:1vp,. BIDAR.
This petition coming-.Vo1i_lfopr ‘ljreliniiiliary Hearing in
‘B’ Group this cilay, the the following:
Thle is” plai’n’tilf. The respondents are
the dlefendaiitslf V_’PlalintiVff–petitioner files a suit in
O.S,No.78llj”]t996″.fo19*dec’laration contending that he and
Spec~i’fi¢: case that he has also sought for possession
the llpetitioner was before this Court in RFA
The said appeal was accepted by this
Judgeior fresh disposal in accordance with law.
and also for perpetual injunction restraining respondent
Nos.2 and 3 from demolishing borewell etc. H
2. During the pendency of the
petitioner maintains an appiication » 2
Initially, an order of injunct»ion::’iil*tVjas
however, later vacated. Aggri–ey’edlllb§rll:thVe’
petitioner was before this 1997.
The said appeal was that the interim
order granted siiall the parties till
the Jltfl respondent No.2
files rejection of the plaint
Code of Civil Procedure.
1908. application was granted. Aggrieved by
matter was remitted to the learned Trial
1
3. After remand, the petitioner as Well as the
respondents make three applications. Petitionejr’–,i’iies
application I.A.No.7 for amendment of
Respondents file an identical application _
of the written statement and
documents. The learnedffrihal took-
applications together allo’weld’l’: same.
inasmuch as the petitioner for
amending the Plaint Tlhe petitioner is
aggrieved learned Trial
Judge and 19 filed by the
resporidentsllli’or*:~..§li’nei’idii1g’ the written statement and
also for
I perused the impugned order.
:lAp.parelrilt1y4,vA’when the matter was remanded to the trial
“Court lor’_”_freshl disposal, it was an open remand which
does .n”eces4sari1y mean than either of the parties can
// //Z/7
/If
/
forthcoming for Vff1e–V..to Vfdifferent view.
seek amendment of the pleadings. Indeed. it is to be
noticed that pursuant to the impugned order,
amendment is carried out and the plaintiff» has
addressed his arguments and the
address their arguments. Having regard
the learned Trial Judge having::’e’§tereise’ti
and found that the appl.icat_ion fo.1f:’amendment”asi’:
as the production of .d’oeu1nen_ts’–required to be
granted, 1 am efgthe view t.hat.Vno’_jeoin’pe11ing reasons are
ijiaviing’sVai’diV’sofI.:am’ of the View that there is no
merit in this petition. = 15¢-vtition is rejected.
Sci/4
§E§§i£§?;
J1″/”~: