IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 27*" Day of January 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MAL1_rgr*iA::5:.'..'..j:
WRIT PETITION /V0.1 6224/2008 (GM-EEC)
BETWEEN:
SR1 M CHIKKASHAMANNA REDDQY
S/O LATE MUNI¥\JA¥\l3AP¥5A'«--REDDY-.,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,"-._ A
R/AT MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI.=p _
BANGALORE sO'uTE:«. TA£__u K. . ~ " _
. LPETITIONER
[By-Sr; S.C:HGGfi;§JEayE3°f§'e:d§1\f, Advocate]
'
,AGEEo"VABo'EtI ,5D-.YE.A RS,'
w/0' LATE D§QDD_As.HAMANN'A REDDY
7_R/AT MU'i'-é.NvEi<O»LALL,U"VELLAGE
MA RATHA HA LLI "s-**«QS*1."_
BANGALORE-'56G.OV3'7EV
' 'V SR1. T{A~MASWAN'Y
AGED ABOUT..3.2'YEARS,
LATE DODDASHAMANNA REDDY
» LR'/AT._M'UNNEKOLALU VILLAGE
'V' - 1, MA RATHAHALLI POST
BANSA'LORE~56DO37
m'.""'vEsHoDA
" AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O LATE DODDASHAMANNA REDDY
R/AT MUNNEKOLALU VELLAGE
MARATEJAHALLI POST
BANGALORE-568037
SMT. VEDA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
D/O LATE DODDASHAMANNA REDDY
R/AT MUNNEKOLALU VILLAGE
MARATHAHALLE POST
BANGALORE-560037
2* SRI;IA.P.ON KUMAR
W/O PAPAN NA,
R/AT OEVARABISSENAHALLI
BELLANOUR POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BARGALORE SOUTH TALUK
16 ER. VERGHESE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ._
S/O LATE E.V. RABBLE
R/AT MARATHAHALLI
VARTHUR HOBLI .
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-.._
17 SR1. M. SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, --.
S/O LATE MUN1NA..AUARRA RE.DDY_
R/AT MUNNEKOLALA VILL,AC3~3E= ' I
VARTHUR HOBLI H " , j' =
BANGALORE .__SOUTH TALLUK'
18 SMT._,GA¥A':ifH_R_AMMA .
AGED ABOUT 3:? YEARS,' _
W/_O L'A.T'E M, NAGARA-2 RE_DDY_§
VVAR/AT'MUNNE'é:OI_A-L.A*-VILLAGE'
1vARTHURgH.OBLI . j
BANGALOREfSOUTH»TAL__.UK
:9 KUM«;.,_R.v.RA;.1N1., '
.» AGEO ABOUT' 23'-YEARS,
O'/O LATE"'M..__!\lA(3ARAJ REDDY
*R;<ATI- MUN:vEKO':_ALA VILLAGE
_V _\/ARTHL'.R HOBL1
_E5A,NGAA,!,_ORE SOUTH TALUK
A_GE'"D'ABOUT 21 YEARS,
~~S/£7 LATE M. NAGARAJ REDDY
R/AT MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE
VARTHOR HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
..RESPONDENTS
{By Sri B.N.Anantha, Advocate
Sri Nayayana and D.G.ChmnapOa
Gowcia for R163]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 22.11.2068 PASSED BY THE 24TH ADDITIONAL
O?/C”
6
him to address arguments. Hence, he submits that
I.A.No.27 requires to be considered and an -4jade’£3;zi’ate
opportunity be given to contest.
3. The contesting respondent’-has”_4 to
alfow this appiicatiori.
4. On hearing, I am con.si’d.er’edj”_vie:yirthat the
trial Court ought to have consi’deVredVVV”I,g’\.Noi2’7*A liwberaily and
permitted the petitioneiritol Failure to
do so and t.reati’ng has exparte would
ca u se u nduieii Th—a one r.
the order dated
22.11:§’2o’o’8 is set aside.
__ii) his Va’i”iowed. Consequently, the order
= 4, dated :,.9;.6;i.;OO8′”st’a’n’dVs recalied.
it _ is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/ma
Judge
mv*