High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri S Sampath Kumar S/O Late … vs Basavaraju S/O Kempaiah on 6 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri S Sampath Kumar S/O Late … vs Basavaraju S/O Kempaiah on 6 April, 2009
Author: H.Billappa
Wmbw

rI\&'umv-§wr'Il.l"'VUl'&a£"'Vv *8 iN"€u.??£'"'#  WIT'               C

....1....

II'? Tim HIGH COURT OF KAIRNATIIKA KI' ERNGRIQRE

mun mxs Item 06" my car APRIL 2oofi9.  'l'..,_

BEFGRE

TEE I-ION'BLE nu1.JUsTIcE%jA;i%.BII._:;i*s13:i:aV '~:: '-

REGHLAR FIRST APPEAL 2¢o.1-5.23 ,mjT?2' o.;J"a.   

BETWEEN

six: 3 smmwrn mm 

5/0 LATE svnnazagi 

AGED ABOUT 44 3'3mt_.s:_  ,  
war nnsnvumrmm, cw: S1'RE E1"~__
mm,   

HARDER 51533103: 5319 4~Q3v;'.;5.;§;ji;£i.Lam
(35! ski'  "  MN. )

slo Kzrwamfi   .. 
AGED ABDUT "6-5 23535  
_ R/<3 G;._1£"S:{'.Ii.EE'I',A.._VEES['E
    ..... 

-mama ;}I$fI’It*I:;w 571 403

2
S/I!3’1_.Jfl’R ?E.’O::ICIs’; stmaum

AGED =55 mama

_iE£}11.KIN3″ gas: nnxvxa
.1~’x2=.1-zz>:A;,~ Rio s».r1.5’1’amr

,!§P£.=AVALLI

‘ gannxh DISTRICT rm. 403

‘ j 5 ,3 Snrvamm

520 mm nxvaxm

AGED 3mm: 53 yam
R./0 1~n:>.3.13., 1″‘ mm

6*’ mass, NAYAKA mm

L,/’

W” “WWW “W” W-KMWMWWM WWW wwzwwz Mr mmnmmmmm mmn hwum um mmemmmmm 3-mg” %.;mm€E” mi” %A§m§m”¢W1& mama izmxm G? mmwgmm Hfiféfi €

-2-

BEHIND I-IEGAIJI Im
KIIIIBARA KOPPAL
MYSORE DISTRICT 5’11 444

vnmmmsn
sic LATE nmvum

AGED A308? 45 mans
Mo mm naanzama :~:31r:'””fi
G.H.STREE’I’, mm
mmmnx Town: A «

mm:-In nzsrnxcw 511* 493

eovmm
SIC: mm DEVAI1-§fi__

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS .

PJO 1~I£}.35′!3… 4″ czaosski’ “

Mrsonn 5′.*1. qM4

Sm J _

we LA*I’E”*-~§13INI$1P+S13s’ ~
AG.-@”AB.Ce~ffIT 33 mans

mic m.s’s–%1
Harman 45’v.1T'<4«n.4

_:*:ir'a, LATE .. snzvmmm

mm: '2'–:z~«':wA.as
. R!_G..G,E«._STREET
_
mswnxcw 5'11 403

Sf?) i.I.J\'i'E SRINIVJXSA

x .-__A.€c@m ABOUT 30 yams

we no. 381.

I

Hfwflfi ‘I3kLU’X
MYSORE DISTRICT 571 444.. .RESPONDE24″I’S

(BY SR1 SHIVASWAHY, AW. FGR R2
SR1 I-EGDE AND RAG, A1375. FOR R1, 3 TO B)

V..

awww m«m-wwma mm;

new-‘Haw: wwnwwmg-WW Mwwm 9 VJ!” ¥\.F”KN.IV.§”ki:K”‘§§’§I”‘z Q'”‘€”c?&”1 C

-3-

REfi IS FILED UIS 96 OF THE CFC fiGfiIHST
THE ORDER HATED 19.12.2003 PASSED 0 EHE
fiPPLICATION FILED UHHER QRBER 21 RELES 57 TD

1:31 RI??? 151 0? SEC IN :e:x.No.1!o8 on

or arm CIVIL amen, ¢Jn..m~n ,
nzsuxssxm mm Apmrcnwrme 3.1133
Apymcanrfcsancmn mnnmn W11!-i.~”‘*EIC§Is’I”~~, -<:z£*__ »
35.500.-f– mm nmscarms nu:-""b'r'z'.ItcE .;m'~.:ss=:rv3

DELIVER': wnymm .

nus APPEAL comm; £03′

nay, T1′-E corms: ns:LIv1:1mn’*–:m,
muwwmm %
Heard the 1a§Ln11a§1 f’ :cq:g_h:s3a.i tor the

parties.

2. against the

Court in E$.Ca&§”H¢§i£5§.

~*, % §. BY thé impugned ordnz. the Executing

‘§”x.§j1 ;uctad the application filed by

thé_§ppeli§nE under Order 21 Rnlea 9? ta 101

V »»Er!w Sacfion 151 at CDC.

‘§. The Executing Ccurt withsut

T wfidstezmining the rights as required under Oxdar

‘.23. Rule 3.63. at cpc has paaaaci the impugned

order’ rejecting applicatian filed by tha

t/