High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri H R Jayappa vs Mallamma on 25 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri H R Jayappa vs Mallamma on 25 November, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
'3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2573 DAY OF' NOVEMBER 2008
BEFORE

THE HOITBLE MR.JU8TICE 3.8. PATIL

wan' PETITIOIV No.15925 or 2007 {GM-qg;-é§:;:'V':'  ~ 

BETWEEN:

Sri I-i.R.Jayappa, 
S/0 late Rudrappa,

Aged about 63 years,

Agricultuxist,

R/at Kalgcm Village,

Bharamasagar Hobli,  _ "  
Chitradurga Taluk 65 Distziqt.  _  " F1?'.Tl"I'IONER

(By Sn RS. Ravi, Adv.)

Maliammfi, * ' V V -~ V
W] 0 Veerabhadrappa,'  2
Aged about 4'? . '

Agxicultugtist,

Ii'/at Kcflgere Village,»  .
 Bhazamasagarafiobli, """ "
'~Chit:I~ad_urgaVTa1}ik  District.  RESPOHDENT

(B5,?  Adv.)

 Pefition is filed under Articles 226 65 227 of the

W ' ' 4Cc; n:3titufioii of India praying to quash the order dated
V' «__1'3§G9.2i3f)7 made on I.A.Nos.8 85 9 in O.S.No.1'63/ 2005 on the

fi1e._of" ii Additional Civil Judge (Jr.D11.), Chitradurga, Vida

  _ A;':1ne}x11re--E.

This Pefifion coming on for pmliminary hearing this day,

 "The Court made the following-



....3.....

wife of Veerabhadrappa was maria under a bonafide 

The said suit has reached finality as the plain: was  *

10.03.2000

. Even. in the present sui_t,…..pe’titior1er”‘

written statement as back as on 04.01.200fj Wi1erein’~oisouif

asserted that the plaintifi”-Smt.Ma1]:s:fimza wos ‘fixer setfork§:v*.szife«V’3of VA
late Veerabhadrappa. That ‘being tVH_€::V.§AApe:f§tior1er
cannot be now permitted to ” i~;:€$1;iAr.’1 2:(b1ruission made
and assert something.oont1~z3v:’3*w–‘ro::’fh’eV Court below
was right and sought for in

this regard.

04. Insofafas tl1’e seeldng to raise a
ground conteudringé thaf ._Be1′;éir1z1:fr’L”{‘ra11sao1ions (Prohibifion) Act,
1988 is 33:: reirospeo’£;i:*e,___bfo;t is prospective is concerned, it is

not to izroorpomte such an assertion. in the pleadings

as it qoesrioo of law that can be urged at any time by

‘l the ;Jetitioi:;er”‘*V’oVc:f(>’i;e the Court.

; In’TviueWV”of the above, there being no merit in this Writ

” _pc:§iI:*.io133, trio same is dismissed.

34/?

Iudgg’

V ‘Ems