High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Parasmal Dungarwal vs Sri Pillappa on 27 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Parasmal Dungarwal vs Sri Pillappa on 27 November, 2008
Author: S.R.Bannurmath & Gowda
IN THE HIGH coum" OF KARNATAKA AT aANe.a{_éR§.

DATED THIS THE 27*" mv or NOVEMBER} 2c§$%§"%   "

PRESENT» 

THE HOWBLE MR.3£}STICE é%».R.V»%%3 A%NNJURff~'»A31§ 

THE HON'Bi.E MR. 3USTICE-35$%.VEN'U.GOPAi.A'€$DW;,)A

§,_QNT§M£'"¥" QF coimr C__.45§§f40;4_§0/2€iG§__CI'§i2L)

BETWEEN:

1 SR: PARAS_N'A.L 9L.§NGARwAL'««..V»%.V_ 
s/o.sR1;*RA'M9§v3I DU?£'GARWA--i;" 
AGED 3"/'~¥Ei'{\_£lE§, ~mxf1*1-:s§.o.;+'%3,M,' V .

11 FLGOR, 1;. MAIN RGAD,'  
sE$§1AD9Ki~Pt:,R_AN;,_,BmcG;=.LQVR£e2e.

2 SR} K i. 5HI$iALI'i'$G}RIAH.. ' '
S/0.. LATE L-IN{5{_:'~  
AG EB L 62 YEARS. WAT N0. 1 741%
13TH 1ViAIN,V3|"~'--'-D BLOCK,
; R/~flA3INAGAR;V BAh'iGALORE«-10. '
" '  '  COMPLAINMTS

% . - (sYSh1;."g RRbfiESH,§E§V.)

 %%A'bspM:' --  <._ - A

1'   SRI. ;51L;AiépA
 s/Sucre MUMCHANNAPPA
Arsea ss vemzs,

'4  A2 "-«SR1 PILLATHIMMARAYAPPA

" L % -5/o.LATE.MuN1cHA:~mAPPA
AGE9 ABOUT 55 YEARS,

V' "3 SR} MURTHY

S/OPILLATHIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,



4 SR1 MANJUNATH
Sf O . PIUATHIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

5 SR1 ASHOKA   
S/CLPILLATHIMMARAYAPPA, S
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

6 521 MADHU  
S/O.PILLATHEMMARAYAPPA,'-vS.S, 
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

7 SRI THIMMMYAPPA 
S/0.M€}OGAPPA,  S ~
MAJOR,  _ % A
ALL ARE R/AT.AvA':111.'v1LLAG§,SVS~'  A   
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALH-TALiJKg'v V
BANGALORE  DIS'E'RIC»'{}, se?_,11c, 

3 SR} 'THI~MMARAf!iPPA., 

Ci;AIMS_TG'.i3VE_Ti'%.E  S S
S/GLLATE MU¥¢ICHAh£NAPFA
AGEDVV37 YEARS,-.f V. ~  V'
R/A¥.ARAWANA.HALi.I,.KUNDANA
HQBLI, 9i.=vAr»:A:4A:.':.I TALUK,

, .£sANc'sALo:2E~s2uRAL ,DISTRICT~ 562 110.

    """  WACCUSED

SR1,  MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

 . 'M/S."C':'fdVV'VENUGOPALA SKASSOCIATES, ADVS. FGR A7&i'-K8,
' .SF'¥T.KUS%}MA R PRASAD, ADV. FOR R1 T9 R6)

TH~ISf£?CC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 8; 12 OF THE

" " ':S4A"'--C'(}!§éTEbdP'I"~*OF comm ACT PRAYING TO ENITIATE APPROPRIATE

PROCEEDINGS AGA1NST THE ACUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE

   {INTERIM 02951:: DATED 04436-2008 AND 28--G?'~2808 PASSEQ
 _ =~IN w.P.76s4/2008.

THXS PETITJON COMING ON FOR ORQERS THIS DAY,

  LBANNURMATH 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-



LA}

ORDER

Aiieging disobedience of the orders datzafi’

and 23.97.03 passed in W.P. m¢.j7ies4/e$;,iiithg ;§Eesent.V& Vi

contempt petition has been fiiefi,

accused have entered appeéfance éizq :3igbr11¥i:~..:”i:?iat”: as ” V

against the very aiieged vioiAa.t§Vi$ii;,. f–!r.1_c.-2 fiééhpiainént has
filed application beforeVthgfi’ri’ai_v§:§.u{f’VQ_sis§§:’Order 39 Rule
42A CPC. In vievg:ef_ thgA’ia’vii* Court in the
case of H, 1fi’$i-iiif’VVV’SHAh:KARALINGE
GOWDA,__ Béflsrkzoae DEVELOPMENT
AUTHOFLHY 2007 KAR 3534) heiding

that paraiieiiéfirncéediihgs by way of application under

_ 0rder.;f3§L.Ruie 2A.V_Véhd émother under Ccmtempt of Courts

Act,lvér2_v;”‘iiQt.vjfnaintainable. Hence, the ccmtempt petiticsn

Astai rid; V V
Judge

Sfi/-%
fzxfigfi

A”””sac*