IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.-=___ DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20:94'fV-V."f'jj«,:"<A.. BEFORE : EEEM THE l-iON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEZNU6-OPAl.A"t3(3Vl}l.I4;:lAv'..f; WRIT PETITION NO.32331/ZCHJEIQ:tAGM~CEPC.5 1 BETWEEN: 3" Crogs, B-angfarpet -- 563 121. -«.E..F3jV.»-'4.S:T1t. Murlnfithnamma, Banggarpet A 563 121, 4."'~.E'(ByxSri J.G.Chandra Mohan, Adv.) 1.
Sri Laxmana,
S/0. late Nanjundappa,
Aged 37 years.
2. Srisrlnivasa, ‘
S/O. late Nanjunpzlappa, ‘
Aged 25 years._ .
3. Sri Narayaavnal.
S/O. late f»lanjurT~dapp’a__, 3 ‘
Aged 33 years”. _ ‘
4. Smt. ll/Ean.gamr’Tia.,.:E * –
D/0. lat-is N3f’.iUnd3D’lJa_.:…_.«
Aged’ 31 yea rs”.
No.1′ .1303 ‘4 afredy “restidiiing at
#751/1.,’ KoteV.'[ROAad,
” D/O; late Nanjundappa,
«Ag ed» 3 yea rs,
R./at Behind KEB Office,
3 “..[{g_5l’ar District.
‘ ..PETITIONERS
AND:
Sri Ramappa,
S/0. late Errappa @ Appaiah,
Aged 60 years,
Inorahosahaili, Kasaba Hobii,
Bangarpet Taiuk — 563 121,
Kolar District.
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 22.7 of the
Constitution of India, praying’ to sertiaside tit:-e_ orders” of the Civil
Judge (Jr. Dn.) and 3MFC., Ban.garp_et;;_’ivn”Q}’S,2i1,3/2009, on IA-2
filed under Order 14 Rule 5, read with”Sectio~n_}15’i of CPC, dated
20.7.2010, as per An.nexur,e- fix to a_theV_ petition, allow the
apblication IA-2. – I ~.
This petition c:o–m’i’n’g..__on-,jfQr’*-pr’eii’minary hearing this day,
the Court made the foii;’owIng:«: ._
Respo_nVdent4″”~ha’s~.fi.i-ed”v.a”°suit against the petitioners for
retovery V-ot’:’p€2’ssession of”‘th’e plaint schedule premises. Written
the claim of the piaintiff was contested.
:iA*I~ssues ‘were on 23.2.10. Petitioners filed I.A.2, for
of additional issues suggested therein. The plaintiff filed
objections and the Trial Court having found I.A.2 to
. ‘lheadevotid of merit, has dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved,
Vwglvtnheédefendants have filed this writ petition. \\
E /2″
{ref
V .;i§”E’sr2Qi\inEN%T’–,’:i»
2.. Sri ;i.G. Chandra Mohan, iearned counsei a.p~p:eai_r’i~nVg
for the petitioners contends that in view of the _
in the written statement dated 16.2.1_O.,… the a’dd’i’t’io’_rf.aVI””issue-5′
suggested in I.A.2 do arise for deterh’1iAna[tio.r’i and”
Trial Court is not justified in deciVi_r§’i~ng to”-raise it.he’-gaididit-iionai= L’
issues suggested.
‘3. I have perused the Vwritiipetition
4. The for recogx/e’ry:Voi§’possession. Based on
the material piea:d_ingj_s’;aVnd”‘tai§’in’ig~ consideration the scope of
the suit, the issues on 23.2.2010
which are as foiiows: ‘
“(1) iWhethéei-..,i;he°piaintiff proves that Nanjundappa was
fi”th.Aeg tenant an’d”‘a’fter his death iegai heirs of deceased
..VgN–va4nju_’.*i,dappa succeeded the tenancy and are in
“i…__«occ«u_pat’i~o’ri. of the suit schedule premises on a
A m_o’nt.h.ii~yA rent of Rs.10/~ on oral iease agreement?
Whether the piaintiff proves that tenancy of the
rfidefendant has been terminated as per section 3.06 of
T.P. Act?
(/4
‘__, _.
‘?sac*
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entit!.e’d»_f’fQr
arrears of rent of Rs.360/- for 3 yea rs ea_r;fi’e’r~ _
this suit?
(4) Whether the piaintiff proves that
the relief of vacant possessidn ‘Of the :sv_uAiti~si:he4d’u,[e’g
property from the defevndfiants as”p.r_ayed?:
(5) What order or dee:jee?”_.*”” .
The said issues being enough, the
suggested issues are ‘u’nn’eces_sa,ryffo
In the said rr1’atte:r;vAt’he”fTria| Court is justified in
dismissing I.V’A.2; of merit and shail stand
rejected. . t
Sm
‘Izi.’d§é