IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT A'
DATED THIS Tm: 22*" DAY OF JULY, 3509 ifj «
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI kMALih§zfm1 %
WRIT PETITION No.9g4 2O08ViGM--f,'PC)_V'VV
BETWEEN:
Sri.N.Sriram Roddy &
S/o Nallappa _, .
Aged about 58 j;é:a.rs;--'" . . '
R,/at: g-02, Prcispey"'Bé;1*k'~VA§)étr§r;:§én_tV'":j .
NagasaI1dg*3;__(}Iirc=l¢"' V1.;__ _ ..
Basavanaj.'gudi" v _ 3f ' _ _
Ba.ngalor£:¢560' 004 .. ._ '
(By smi. L. Vs_g1kat¥ii3p;i';_fisa:i:i{o¢ate)
.....
BasaK$ariagi;;:4.i;VE3:fan2::h
No.1 21, Rathmi Murthy Complex
_ DVG”Roa£i’, ‘flaiéavanagudi
– -. ‘Banga.i0re–S:.6() 004
. ‘- Rxepxesentyed by its
‘ “B§an_;:h’A.~Manager
$=l=38#=I¥
. PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
C. N. Venugapal and Associates, Advocate)
R94”
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 22′?._dfTthe
Constitution of India, praying to quash me order
and 13.6.2008 passeti by flu: Horfble Court Civil :
No.16-407!2004 vide Annexure.-D. _.
This Petition coming on for
Group this day, the Court made the fo1I0wing.:_- ‘ ” s = — ”
0RDE®»_
Petitioner seeks for’si_’_$*sfit 0,-33,-S
dated 02!O6!2%8 and 13/()v6i2{:3_CiV?–3 Civil Judge
at Bangaiore,_ 4’ consequential
reliefs. ____ H 1 in ‘V V’
2. ii 1;'(}’i’:t_he -‘petitioner contends that an
applicatien r/W section 151 CFC was filed
V. s:<§j0uvrnniié1'2t. ,Qf_fl1e suit. The trial Court by file order
»l. rejected the said prayer and by granting liberty
to file written arguments posted the suit for
_i ' Iudgnerzti "Hence the present petition.
V. Sri. L. Venkatappa, learned counsel appearing for the
contends that the trial Court committed an ems' in
' Liipassing the impugned order and hence interferenca is called for.
0??"
V’ _ is;-thev..$pecif1e ”
He contends that since the defendant lefi for on
31/0512008 the application supported by a _
was filed with regard to the same.
presence of the defendant could’ not ,
matter be adjourned by six days. on eonsidering
the same has passed the A H
4. I have petitioner. The
respondenfs
5. ” eounsel for the petitioner, the
petition the following reasons:
V of the petitioner that the defendant had
However, when the matter was listw
. for’ before the trial Court on 2.6.2008, no such
of the said facts was made to the Court. The order of
Court wouid only disclose that the defendant sought for
tézrte, that time too, has been refused by the eial Court. No
contention or an application was made to the trio} Court on
<a'1<*
2.6.2008, viz. the date by which the defendant
India. It is enly when time was refused on
matter was listed fer consideration tiietiithet
application has been filed. The ,tilingi"' the ggipiittaiimieet
belatedly lacks bonafides. The Court
to wait for his return er tiie of the
defendant. Even a genuine ease
te abstain frerie-'tiie_ been mentioned at
the I find the present
applieat:i;cet iThe order passed by the trial
Court the suit Judgment is therefore, in eonsonanee
V' with Thefefb1*e; 'it does not call for interference.
. it ' reasons, the petition is rejected.
86/5
Iaaaa
