High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri G.K Mallaiah vs Smt. Palamma on 25 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Sri G.K Mallaiah vs Smt. Palamma on 25 May, 2011
Author: B.S.Patil
1
A. , A-

IN1}flEHKHiCOURT(H?KARNHDMQLKTBfiNGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 201 1

BEFORE

THE I~I€)N'BLE MRJUSTICE 3.3' PAf.§m;.'  ,_ A' 

W.P.No.11037/2011 (GM-cP_f1_A'_j ' 
BETWEEN ''  '

SR1 GK MALLAIAH
S/O KADE GOWDA = 
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS     
PRESIDENT: G K M EDUCATION 1NsTI'm'r:0NS~  '

SHUATEDA'1'N13wC0A4P:,}5;<, A j .  
G K M EXTENSION, KANAE_<;£fl?URA ROAD,  
JARAGANAHALLI  " -   1 " "

BANGALOREABBOGGVS.

 "  _ P'-ETITIONER

{BY SR1 M.RAV'[PE?A_K'_2kSH§_ Amffi

AND

1.

Sm’. PAr;A*A:r_MA1V’§. _
W’/AD L–A’1″E; A?i§}AY1’APP_A’~’–.. ‘
AGED ABOUT a0__*2-%EA.:3s- . _

SMT :Ar{sH1vLAMM2–. >
;*o.KR1sHNAPPA ‘
_~ ‘.A;Hg:_:> ABOUT”‘Z}3_._YEARS

sv

‘ * –. _sR:vu’«9Ei§Ar;RA KUMAR

‘ 5;i ‘A_3;;:e*”1’ 32 YEARS

“‘§3RI A-.M§ixNA3UNA’1’HA
$5.0 LA’1’E, KRISHNAPPA

AA _ A0131: ABOUT 28 YEARS

A = 51:21 2:93:30 KEJEVEAR

3,20 L;~’¥’E”‘E1” KR;sHNA;>§>A
;§{}E2’E) s’§BOUT 25 YEARS

I
R)
l

(3. SR1 SOMASHEKHAR
S / O GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39} YEARS

ALL ARE RXAT JARAGANAHAVIVL1 ‘JILEAGE
U’T'{‘ARAHALLI HOBLI _ V’
BANGAI,ORE SOU’I’H ‘I’ALL?K. ‘ RESP{.);*IDEE9’*IS

{BY SR1 B.S.SACHL’\3, ADV. FOR
DHARMASHREEE ASS’iS., FQR RI »5
R8 v SERVED) -.

This writ petition is filed’z::1é:%:Et1’ArtiC1eS’~§3.2i3 and 227 of
the Cozlstiigution of India’ “pray.Engi_to” s;:t_é1side the order passsd
by the City <:m1 Jud'g.~:,;~Bangz:§;Io:4e-_ in 0.5.4659/06 was
Annexure-F' and etc. " . vv ' ..

This W1’it.vp’2é.f_j{;’é0n gcoming pyéliminary hearing this
day, the Cour? ‘maéjé me f011ewing.4*

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘

1. Order datvéki passed by the Principal City Civil

& S€:ssi0nS”J__udg€, Baf;;ga1.o ij>3, dismissing the application filed by

the pf£%ai’h€if£’~1>efitian¢r hesrein ta Stay further proceedings in the

;§1ii£_~: O$_S.No,’4@59/2005 till thé statement, undér Section 313

by the Eearned V Additisnal Chief

_ Meif’€:p01–:ié111′ E\/Iagisirais before whom C.C.No.}EI66/200′? is

_:§3Gr:V[ri§’i:1gVag%ainst; Ehe petiiianer is chaflenged in ibis writ p€£,§i:<3n.
, _ 4"'?-e'iii;iez1€r has {fled the suit G.S.NOx5i559/2935 sséking

E§§}§f{fifi(? §}€I'f{}§'H'1é1I1i','f3. GE £116 3§§E'iEi€£"fi€:Ei 50:' Saki: aiksgeéiy €:1:€:*€<:i

31132:; $33; 031$ §:E1§€f skzzzzzzgzaggjgzz ~ Ezxisbzmci <35 iE':<-: ESE §;§sf<i-ndazzi. '§'h€:

4. Though learned emmsel fer both parties tried t0~-address

their zirgulnems on nzerits of the prayer made in E§1e:’_éip.;:i}ieVe:ion

fer stay befere the Trial Court. I find ii; L:nneeess.:§fy {Q

the Izsertas of the ease as the Trial Ceuzft L. ‘

rhefiifis 0f the appheatieh, but has 0133} ;§_i*0CiVee€ied”i’_§5

appiieation on the ground tha*f_i’i’–~:he app1i::ati<:°{r1'fie'ev:31.e:'taine'é%.,L'

it W11} amount to delaying th_e_:VVV'p.1j0e.eei9iaI Court ought te
have gone in:Q3.’Vtheie’efnVer:t’s Cif the 4_3pp1ie.a’L’:¥€)n and dispeseagof the

application fi1¢V’?:fitS;”TI’1éA’:§fC’I”i’Si’d€1;%1UOI1 of the application on

merits ‘M11 r’1_Ae>i7.j’g_ar_1at:;:Iho-:#Vhi_.V{Qdelaying the praceedings in the
suit or 3.1’€he”-léiirections issued by this Court,

Therefore, the \§?ritv.f}etiti0fi..is allowed. Impugned Order is set

Trial C0£ift”‘i$ directed to dispose of the application

Qrif :1_1’e::if;s ueariy as possible and proceed in accordance wiih

iaev’ §;here_a.fiei5V, Piainiiff shall argue on the application en the

‘next daée igtf hearing witheut seeking any e;djour:1n3ehfl;.

mega

Sig?