3.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 97" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAvA'_I_*$DA:;AD.' .
MISC. CVL. No.15517_/20:0
EN R.F.A.No.1545/ZOIDO' (PA_IgD' D
BETWEEN: D D
Sri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy.
S/o.1ate Kooriappa @
Muniswamappa, ._
73 years.
[By S1'i.N.S.Sanjay GQWEia,,_ Adm "
AND: D D
1. Sri.Abbaiah..ReddyD,D D*--:;,._ ._
Since dead, Rep: hi:D3_L.Rs".«,_ .
2. Sri.V.VenI<;ataDpp£:D1, ' _
Since dead, Rep." by L.i_s
(a1 VSmt.Sa.1§é1Dsw"atha1IDirn D
W_/A 0.1-'¢1_té' VA.~Ver:1;atappa;""' DD
years, 'V D -
ar1dt§'L?.1_éf*_s_..DD ...RE3SPONDENTS
(By Sri.T.D$~hes?D1agif'Di R210, Adv. for R~2{c} & R-3}
This Misc. CV1. is filed under Order 41 Rule 14(1) praying to
dispense with notice of the appeal to the Respondent Z\Io.2(e1= ,4 to
6. 10 to 17 in the interest ofjustice and equity. 1′ it
This Misc. CV1. coming on for orders, this 1′
made the f01Iowin.g:– ORDER V p
Heard on M1’sc.Cv1. 15517/2010. app1ica.tion~:iiie:d’ ._
by the appeflant under Order 4:1. Ru.1§”~.14(1)””o.£ that ” A
notice to Respondent No.2[e),,. to maybe dispensed
with on the ground that they ‘iii/ere e}<pafte.before the Trial
Court.
Sri.T.Shesh5a¢’cVgiisi’_” ‘—th’at”:ERespondent No.2(e) was
not placed e;:péfi~’tee~ he further submits
that since suit and these respondents are
sharers, notice cannot b¢’,diép§h~s}=:d With.
“”Th.et1;1a%1”;tiI’f .f&’i1ed’Ha”siiit for partition. The suit came to be
dis1nA1.g§_.sed’_ sought for by the plaintiff is for partition
‘«ar.1d sepayate possession. Notice 0 the unserved respondents in
3
this appeai cannot be dispensed with. Accordingly,
Misc.Cv1. 15517/2010 is rejected.
br1v*