IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 3&9 DAY OF JUNE', ?.:QOS~: T ' L BEFORE " THE HONBLE MR.JU$TIcE'RA\n MA:g1;MjA'm %' WRIT PETITION JNO. 12%2é"z;__ 01:1 2o08iG?v1~ciDC) BETWEEN : . '~ S / cniatc V Aged 51 yam; L 'a Residingat: No. , 1031 Cross, 16?? _ _ 'Nanjmideswara %fii1as'a,T*T%%% & Tavarek61f@§. V' " V. B.T.M.Laycut.- V __ _ Bangalore -- 560 'G8 1." .... . JDETITIONER Advocate) SziL"~--Gu:i11n%éiIiesh, S/o.Ia1;e"Sri M.Nanjundaiah, W Agsd aéhilt 61 years, Rcsiffizlg at Portion sf No.2/6, . "'}.0m"Cmss, 16" Main, 'bianjundeshwara Nilaya,' ~ V' ""I'ava;rekeI'e, " B.'I".M.Layout. .. 2 .. Bangalore ~---- 560 081. .... HRESPONDENTV
[By Sri I).R.Basavarajappa, Advocate)
This Writ: pemjon is filed under AJ*fie1.es:2’326– a:.;d~ x
227 of the Constitution of Ind§aMpI*a§:_iI1g to Q1 f13,S115tl’1€3
impugned order passed by the on} No.2′;
dated 30.8.2008 in OS No,11?’6,”.93_._ on t§t;e”fi}e gems»,
XIV Aéditional City ejudge’-._at VB-aglgalore _sVide._*
Annexure-F While directing’ Tria3—- Court to proceed
with the suit in accordance ya_rit;_h_t_.i1.e law.
This petition eorrfiéng Hearing in
‘B’ gwoup this day, the Cou_z”t’V’made«.tI1e;’fo11o1vi3:1g:–=
ed counsels appearm g
on the “*11iatter is taken up for final
dis1:§oea}.
V’ 2f} *:?’1;e,._ msfig-;odent*s application I.A.No.22 fiied
:10 of CPC came to be alloxveci. Hence,
the —-1:>rej$’»e.ef”petitjon.
3. Sri I3.V.Ba<1rinath, learned counsel for the
~»v-pietitioner submitted that the subsequent suit
e/L"
…4….
circumstances is Wholly unjustified. However, i’:: i3 {Q be
noted that as on the date of filing the applie;;i¥ie1f1″~§1;§%{£eI*. %
Section 10 of CPC. two suits ~..
consideratien. One of the A fl saiits’ ’12a_I;1eiy,’
OS. 1194/ 1994 has sincesiaeen >
it would be just and _s3ta§?’ “prcviceediI1gs
in O.S.No.1176/1993*;«. iEVen __is a subsequent
suit the facing? vpositieiez ijisv ivstibsequent suit:
having 2 staying of O.S.Ne! justified.
5 ‘ Fer the A’ ‘aforesaid reasons, the petition being
” de”V%0iciE”i§f tiiuerits, is rejected.
H ~ d Iadgwé
eSdI-5