Sri G Mahadeva vs Sri Nanjaiah on 17 March, 2008

IN THE HIGH CIGURT UF }UlRNPsTP.l€Pu AT BANGALORE

nnmnn THIS THE 17th nu? or MARSH zfifiéta

BEEORE
THE Hflu'EbE "a.Juh¢1gE N;H. EAT};
C'.'"'' .R'«.'.;- . 1C*5'%£G$9J {I . Ci}
narnaagg
1 SR1 G Mnnnnmmn _W v_*,_ ~«_
3:0 LATE HIEGAIAH @"3RNfiaIAH %
ngmu 49 wgaas, ago KUEUERRH KALENAHALLI
vmnnasm, KASAEA BDBLI;,"C}v'_
cfiafimAaAH%3A?aa TALE '< *,=' iii PETITIQHE£
 Fm .:"§.:~a:'*1'I.:"**:-:x=V *.-"E 3.1'.»*1';:'.='.;-.*r, Anvecarzy
END :
 1   
~V n:o.Jcu=.:_, 'r;;.f.o"1~:_mu1~u'::.nn. mums
'  
«hen tug gala ault was at the 3tage_q£=argumaat$iu

it.

tha gatitiafiar héffiifi filed I;A;fiaL1t unfiér Dr

:«u.;.:..a~ 11 man: wit';': Esecs'-.::'--...§T:r:i _1;-.31'  '~.'L'.."'Pt'; =

''1h

7

I
H}

g
rajactian af the glrifit» prraefitafitttfiuttta .first
respondent. Thgfi said' r§§lltatlfin"'érme up for
cnnsifleratimn tr ll$;t}20§§tf;ttThe trial Court
after haarifig {firth :mldr§, éndt after considering
the rmtérirrtfifiétia§;gfgnfitttfording appartunity
ta .... wtfiéixtmgnarlL:§ha-_r%prasantad the parties,
dismiarrfifif{th§K:*ap@lication filed by the

petitimner;_*r'AQrfiilinq the correctness of the

_ Saar, tug Vyetitioner has presented the inatant

Péfilrimn petitian=

V'53Q}" Heard the learned caunsel for the

ttgétitianar.

4. After careful. perusal of the impugned
ardar passad by the trial caurt on I.A.No.11, I
flfl nut fine any arrnr much less material

irregularity as such committed by the trial caurt

/
7:'»~

5- 9."
"dc,



far xajanting tha applicatian. The trial Caurt
nitgg hearing bath aidea and after cgfifiidering

tha ma;exial available an file has;hy a$signing

valid rsaanns at Paragraghtfii of _£ha'f¢rdcr*§has 

rajécfiad the applic

in
:1-

, .. 54- _
I3
-3

gatitianer has fiat ch§san t§ §§is% fifie ahiécfiigns
ragarding the jurisfiiégian gt tH§ffiféE"instahce
not has he takah any éufih &a£enfié"in ihe written
statemant. In Ené &b§én§§:$§Hguch defence, an
iasua has hgan{f§é@fid £§ggfidi£§ the jurisdiction
of tya ;$firfi"éfi@u,it'fgfipflia be dacidad after
apprafiififiiég at fifié fiég; and dacumantary evidence
%nd'aft§f¥affafid{ng'cpportunity tn the parties in

the épriaig  E§£h  £he parties have adduced the

_}évidgnc&.afid néceasary dacuments have been marked

afifl ihg matta: ig arguad at length. The caunsal

?_ fab {ha §atitinner has taken eight adjaurnmants

ii
3

f;nmv)7.ifi.2flG? ta 3.1.--03. Tharfiufteg, the

I
x.

"mafiter iw arquad in part an 9.1.2303. Again the
§'cmun3&l for the getitioner has taken twc

adjaurnmants and aubmittad his part cf arguméfitfi
an 23.1.3308 and thereafter, ha has again taken

aha mnra aajournmant and filed the present

/yam
 «

.

V

.”‘::.;.i;;a1:ngV:_”«_::.1§a£ With-ég L

H =_ff«a1nx~.

applicatiun diaputing the jurisdictian cf the
court, which attitude at the petitianer ifi highly

degrgsabl; anQ gondemnable. Therafqreg;thé Enid

aggliuatimn cannet bi cflnsidggefi gfi this stage:_

‘ _ _z V’ ? ;__ _V _ ~
The fiaid rassaning glvan fen =rage£t;ng «tha

applicatian is ju3tp,and. Eagsanahla,”-‘I gdn *net
find any arrar or perfiaisity 53 fiuéh Efififiittafi E”
tha trial court» fo:<"b&jecEing the* application,

calling fur intehffirehné by thifi Cuurt.

tfi dxapfiaa éf tfiu Suit éxyefiitiaualy, at an" rate

within a–pé&ifid 53 four manths from tha mafia u;

Vrg¢ai§t"a£ a nag? af this order after affording

~ߢmEgggtunif?~te*bath the parties.

Eidl/F-%
1115950,.