1nnwHmnammnwxmmMmmuw§f %
nmmnflmummmflnMnwnMwg@mw ,
nnronn.,«_*
% %:m~-._u'!.I:g.Isi;I.%1?._. -.!.l.fl.!'!*.I.¢;nfi
-7 '._--._.._.
1 SR! REDDAPPA s1o'%1:RiSH:§APRAj 3 Q
1- "
:o_
3121 - A
AGED"AB.QU'P'_i_23'YR$; - H '
3 SR; MAN;szi«:s:;xTHgas)o REDDMPA
.. :31 Y1"-..é:--.;*
$_RI' QJJEL'+_.L 3,64) L'g%'!?PA
.AGE]3 ABOUT 4.12 311-'zg;'« "
-J3
.,KUM ARU.NA.v'D/{D REDDAPPA
.. as-*3.-an mac-.:.f*r 15.-i.".=es,
Cl
« . H r+m'rza:eERs 4 as ARE a::%:e<ms
_ "BEHflG..REPRESENTED BY THEIRNATURAL
* é "Gii£§'Rfiir'-efi-THE 1.31' FE'i'i'i'~i0NE'R.
ALL.§REr31nENTs or BENAGUR 'VILLAGE,
_ frio:..fc=R HOBH. -
KQLAR TALUK AND nlsrnxcr.
_ H 3 % 'PE'.I'ITIO'N=El§8
X .. (B3'T SR1; s. VIISWESWARAIAI-I-, ADV.) %
%x%Amu
1 T:-31w1;* SANJEEVA-M'MA'W,/O MUNISWAMAPPA
T AGED 70 mew, '
RJAT NUKKANAHALLI
_HOI;U.R_HOBLl, 7
Kama -'I*Q.'A-ND n1s'I'.,
NI
2 MR. NARAYANAPPA
S] O VENKATAPPA
AGED 50 YRS,
R/AT NUKKANAHAL!
HOLUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TQ. AND DIS'I'..
.. R,E£*eP(3NiTJF:iii'T*S 0
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED _l_._J_NDE£l.. ARTICLES '2'26:iAND 227 OF'
THE CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA PRAYMG' 'DC._QUA§H"'T'i-H9 <'J'E'.'l3E'R "I.'r'i'.
30.1.2006 PASSED ON IAa_N'0.6 '.BY;THE~._FRLa.'CIvIL JUDGE, SR.DN.,
KOLAR IN O.S.NO.1B6/2002 VIBE ' '
This Writ'VPelilitJ1i"een:i1igjz)11 heaiirg
in B' _roup,.td&ty_;=._the --'JouI't:'niad_e_it11c following:
...
;.et_itie11er:§j’-»,1a1e”‘–e.__:(ieie11da11ts 1 to 5 in 0.8.
I’o.186f200:E. pe’ni'”.; en the ..’.e at 4…… –‘in«.=i}_rs.a_l _1vit
* _ J Di”\iI1.v}…Kela1′. let respondents helein has iiied
_ against the petitioners and 2′!” leepondent
suit, the prayer is for a judgment and
deezieeé..- }…1’t..’…i¢_:n gt’ the suit. schedule pmperliee. The suit.
711%.-‘IS? been eomesied by the ‘§fiiiiit)Ii’¢l’$ ..e:*ei1:, ..l..: ….I=I.-e
Hfiled their written statement. Plailntifl’ has deposed and
has adduced her side of evidence. The suit was posted on
09.01.2006 for defendants’ evidence. Since the
tiefelizlante west e..eenI.. mg, there was no repneeentation
\/-
/ .
on their’ behalf, the trial Court has taken the of
defendants as closed and has posted the
of arguments on 23.01.2006. T.
151:
ate ti; euit litid been adjOm’net1..=__
A” 4– ————— «In. -=—= . . . – — .4 -…’.~.–i{‘.~=’-d Il..:..n a……’J!.l.”.~-.V.’.. u .-:.l…. ….
0 L0 l’60Pl:.’.I1 U16 Lubt: uuu pD1*.uu*L u1I::m— [£1 ~ ,u_u 1; cv u 11
on their behalf. Inf~ti_1e — A iii’ ei.1ppo1’t the
application, 1″ petitioiser fact that since
he was not; ccittid in the court. on
09.01.20t§é §;Ll¢_le:e e\_:i,-_1;:e. His
was ei’ his
flhneseeltstiduie’ «iide reasons. Hence periniseiun
was esuuugtuit. ‘”Cuu1°t cenesideling the fact that the
it it = filed belatedly alter the suit is posted
9:1’ ‘ e:§’guieez,;t.~e, fineliug that the 1-mnlim-lliun Lu 1
.–rr– …. —-
1′ 1′
u11te11§1t:1e.?”~viias dismissed LA No.6.
* .
emg aggr-ieveci by the
U3
.. ea_id.en;le1′, this writ petition has been filed.
~02. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the
fin.
3. From the perusai of the plaint it is
defendants 4 and 5 me luinurs and their 4_
involved in the suit which 1eqtiiI’t:s– 4L’oI”1sidei’t§i1,i1)i1v by the j
C»t)l;1’L. Meusly because the ilut é13;)ea1’t«.oi.1;e1Vie~ pr
. .1 n… ..1.v…’,..4!..’~… ….A … ‘ 4 V
u Lu U:icaz_\.1″-‘ Wu =57 cu,»
the reasons fur 11o11,ap_pea1*ai1ctijwI1iel1 wt1s”01*1Vaccou11t of
illness and for buna fide jest.-sc1;s_tt’ei_’;a1″ ‘tvlneli an aflidavit
was filed has not been
I ut:’t..n.re:” 111.91: M’: Ll; 11L, 11;, Court
uughtv id “i’iave the and IA
No.6. ‘I’11e’- t1’ia1.V(3>{)ftz19t’ –~\§iL1.I.out examining the cause shown
in the Lapt§iie_t:1t.iui1 iheellaxtitzally passed the impugned
. = ci’de1′.?”I 311; with the cause shown in the aflidavit
I Viz; .V*.i’-nix: .1″i.V«;,!’v ‘I4-1 Nmfa. in View 91′ which Ll; . 1 -11-!’ ecugltt in
.-g n cw. , ..
I&«.._Nu__.6′ inquired ‘Lu graiited. Th” tfiai wart
..acteti<vtriU: haste in the matt.e1'. Reasonable opportunity
be gmnted to the parties to put forth their case.
~*§Wl1en minors have been made parties to the proceedings,
than ('nut-!_ 51193'; g-;_g'l1 '
Ia.I.l.\4 'E-l\JIo4-I n as 415-. v.-'- —–w– '–n— '
multiplicity of proceedings. / .
UVI
For the foregoing reasons and ditzeueaitii-$S,e» ‘f”tl1″e
impugned under cannot be sug-aitiizaedfi tt’11¢1′.;.””J’t_1t::1we12yj’.
aside and the pra__ye1′ made in IA :Nt__J.b1t3_,V’A.i&5 ~t9
the eezzditien L.e.|. ;wtit..::1*m-‘5′ ..t1m’-eiis, oi’
Rs.5t’J’fi/- to the piaixtainfs um –Ct)u1tlé,’ wiufixt a period
of one month Iimn defendants i.e.,
petitiultcrs ileéid complete their
evidence V
in L1ie}.*etitio11 is allowed and impugned
cider is set Side; _stubj_et}t= to the eheezvetiezts ma- dizestiuzg