High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Shivanna S/O Utharayya vs Siddegowda @ Puttegowda on 29 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivanna S/O Utharayya vs Siddegowda @ Puttegowda on 29 January, 2009
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
-  ...,...W__ W ..m..,..W...m ruwn W-mu W a\m¢NA!'AKA mm-I mum M mmmam Mmw mam' M mazmmm Ham mm

IN THE HIGH councr or !<ARNATAKA AT   A
DATED THIS ms 29*" DAY or Z  ,  

'azzpom 

THE HOWBLE DR.JUSTICE

   

asrween   E V %
sax snwmmu s/o   
AGEDABO&.!1'31,"f"n5:.j"    
AGRICUL'i'uB,fiZST::__   
R/0  »
c A I§vEGm'¢DA @ PUTFEGOWDA
~ % AGEDABOUT 52 'rams NAT moammm
"'VILLAG'E, c.A. KERE HOBLI
moans TALUK

   -  DEVARAJU

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

SID LATE SIDDEGOWDA Q PUTTEGOWDA
R/AT MADARAHQLLI VILLAGE

CA. KERE HOBLI

MADDUR TALUK



 nwwnmavmmmnwu mmv:-u 'k.&JUK! 5.» KAKNA'£"AEU% HIGH CQURT 0? KARNA"ffi%Kfix H¥CZvH COURT Q? KARNAEQKA MQGH COURI

3 F' SUNDAR
AGED ABGUT 34 YEARS

sxo LATE smoesowm @ puwesewtxg if  A E  E 
R/AT mmmmm VILME  '  _  E  "

CA. KERE HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK

4 snvrr am-mm
wxo LATE GANAIAH  
AGED ABOUT 49  -  
R;AT MADARAHALLE vILu§§GE"««  ,  
cm. KERE HOBLI  E    
MABDUR Ts!-:LUl(:A""   *

5 sm K£sBB4§l.II§_';'. % .;  
Assn   E   
R-*?="*T "[5953-§H¢JJ5EV1Li-A55
CA. l=§£RE'i-"!fl&j.L£_V.__  E
mwun m.uE:<   % *

5 5H-.'§NKAR!EGGWDA
 -   E%Ey;wc:2 sqwnwemm
   met;  52 YEARS
 E%PJA1fmm;mmm VILLAGE
E ,  ..(;.fit.«'iy§E_li;E'i-¢0BLI
E .1_4hflDDflR*TALUK

... RESPONDENTS

4′ 4, A4 sax : JAvA:<uma 5 PATIL. FOR R1(A–r.1éar§:’1g’;VVV!:;J_t!iig f

day, the Court made the fotjlowlniag

The pet!tioner«rHa i”a*’nt!Afl’:_ I1f§nf :V}1t)’;$’f§j§:a156{2D0D on
the man of the cam; is before
this Ca-urti. order dated
17-6-2OV*35- under order 39
Rulas 1 ,,,-mg 2 653$::¢%%%r-é;gs.5Mo.15;2ao1 on the me of
the CM! “F’$ddur at Annexure-J.

%  %    was mad on 29-9-zoos. "me

i    1, 2 and 3 are represented by

%Vsfl.Jiv§kq%m$’r s.PatII. Notice Imuad to rwponclant
~-.tja s9 unseen rammed un-sawed with postal shara
%kk’1..%ma£R§4 is dead. so as to take steps to L.Rs or R-4
% am case was Ham on 13-2-zoas before the Registrar

Judicial. on request, Registrar Judicial manned twa
!’

L

‘-**-‘*-“‘fV..’~j* WNNVMIHAM nmrrl L:%JURU UR” KAKNAi”AKA filfifl CUUR? 05 %{ARi’%flE§’AKA HEGH COURT OF KARNAYAKA MGM COW???

weelm’ time to do the needful.

application came to ba filed under omar&&2%2:%%n:;[§jeg g §
and 3 of cpc to bring the LM
office by an arder dated 28-4″-§~.:;9l’.&3vf’3-,_’!..”.*7t’:T.’!Vert’1vtv:’.1’V”

the L.R appllcatlen an the fiia’t !_:’t5i er§§ is no
menfion as no the % R.-4 In the
application f!teq_A:33f of the
application _v:$$!!i_ matter was
listed heme But name
appaaréd the matter was
posted my; 18-8-2008. A week’s time

– mg%-anma m%da~m-«naearua. Imam was net done.

ilstea on 17-11-2008 and twa

wée!§’ iivas grantaad to do me needful. Again

was not done. case was listed an 18-12-2008
VF Agatn rm: weeks’ time was granted. Again
V. was not done. ‘l’herefare the case is listed for
ibrders today.

L

,.,.,.. ..W….V_A …,… aw-I.meNa.I'”na#’l!\J’ll mm-. MWUKS W mmlwlm mm-3 mum” W mmmmm mm-a mam W mmmmm mm mum

stem

Efffif

3. The counsel for the petltloner

wealds time to do me neaaful. since ls;

gmamu and l-teeplng ln vla1N:=:Ltl1q§:.”p§:fi:,.’:pellltla§1:_’__’jls_§ T

pertaining to the year 2005.»an;;l 11$ :1″ v

passed on an appllcatlma 1
and 2 (IPC refuslng la the
appeal, the ciaasgh iflllal dlsposal
aisn-mu-lg agalnslg.4 for want of

4. Pmzsad vie’ mm is no
or lllegallty ln In the rault,

the wrlt :pettlanl_fa%lls_;_lfandA ls dismissed.

Iuda;